« September 2007 | Main | November 2007 »

Edwards Picks Up NH SEIU Endorsement

October 30, 2007 10:04 PM

ABC News' Raelyn Johnson Reports: Former Sen John Edwards D-N.C., has picked up the endorsement of the New Hampshire Service Employee’s International Union.

"The executive board voted tonight to recommend to the membership to support Senator Edwards because of his strong voice for working family issues in New Hampshire," said Jay Ward, New Hampshire State Council Political Director in an interview with ABC News. "They believe that Sen. Edwards represents the best choice for SEIU members."

Last week members of the NH SEIU were divided in their support, deciding between Edwards and Sen. Barack Obama D-Ill. The political action committee, responsible for researching and meeting with the candidates voted last week to recommend Edwards to the executive board. The executive board however, showed a fair amount of support for Obama, and they decided to hold out on an endorsement.

On Saturday during the NH SEIU convention, Edwards won a straw poll conducted which confirmed the political education committee was accurate and reflecting the direction of the members.

Today's endorsement brings Edwards support from the second early nominating contest state as two weeks ago the Iowa SEIU endorsed Edwards ’08 bid.

Ward notes, "There are a lot of high quality candidates running and members believe that through their hard work and outreach to coworkers and their families, Sen. Edwards can be pushed along to winning the New Hampshire primary.

October 30, 2007 in Tancredo, Tom | Permalink | User Comments (4)

Live-Blogging During Tonight's Democratic Debate

October 30, 2007 5:50 PM

11:05 pm ET: Rick Klein wrapping it up -- Hillary Clinton gave a truly bad answer at the end, on illegal immigration, one that feeds the argument Obama and Edwards were making all night. Did Obama clear the bar he set for himself? Probably yes, but not with much room to spare. Edwards still seems better, though, at finding compelling ways to set himself apart. And other surprises -- how about Joe Biden taking on Rudy Giuliani? Is he the new George W. Bush, in terms of punching-bag status?

That's it for blogging tonight. Check out The Note tomorrow and ABCNews.com tonight for a more full recap...

11:04 pm ET: From ABC's David Wright: Okay I take it back about the lightning round.  UFO's, life on mars, driver's licenses for illegal immigrants, legalizing pot, and christmas toys from china.  Oddball questions that have, in the end, sparked some interesting responses.

11:03 pm ET: We're now talking about Halloween costumes. End this. Now.

10:59 pm ET: This talk of extra-terrestrials is argument enough to making these debates shorter. But Obama's answer about taking care of life on Earth, that's a good response to a weird question.

10:58 pm ET: Russert: "Did you see a UFO?" Kucinich: "I did." You can't make this stuff up.

10:58 pm ET: From ABC's Jake Tapper: Clinton parsing on the difference between "I think it makes a lot of sense" and "I agree with it" on Gov. Spitzer's plan to give driver's licenses for illegal immigrants -- confusing. And, whoa, Edwards just went in for the kill. Whoa - so did Obama.... A new issue just was born.

10:56 pm ET: It's rare that a highlight comes this late in a debate, but Edwards picks up on that inconsistency on immigration: "Sen. Clinton said two different things in the course of about two minutes." Obama: "I was confused on Sen. Clinton's answer." And Obama calls the Spitzer plan "the right idea."

10:54 pm ET: Sen. Clinton is actually engaged in a good debate with Sen. Dodd over illegal immigration -- harmed by the fact that her stance is less than firm. It's still not clear whether she supports the initiative of her own governor.

10:50 pm ET: ABC's David Wright: Whoever came up with the "lightning round" concept should be fired.  It seems we are in for 10 minutes of boilerplate in 30 second chunks.

10:35 pm ET: The last few minutes remind me of why debates should end at 90 minutes. Less energy on the stage, and fewer interesting things to be said.

10:29 pm ET: Clinton really doesn't want any part of Charlie Rangel's tax plan. She doesn't know the details -- and here's guessing she doesn't want to know them.

10:28 pm ET: The Clinton campaign provides documentation for saying that the healthcare records are available: "The only documents certain to be available at the opening of Clinton's library are 500,000 pages collected by the health care task force headed by then-first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton. The task force's proposal for a universal health care system included closed-door meetings and led to one of Clinton's early first-term defeats. The closed meetings led to a federal court ruling that opened the documents nine years ago." [AP, 9/17/04 <http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132789,00.html> ]

Newsweek, however, reported last week that "some key papers from her health-care task force" remain hidden from public view.

10:18 pm ET: From ABC's Jake Tapper: I think Obama's having a pretty good night. And though clearly Clinton's folks seem to have told her not to engage directly with Obama or Edwards - probably because they think it would only elevate them - I don't think that has worked. She's projecting "frontrunner" but I'm not sure it's projecting "frontrunner you should be content with." And boy -- LIHEAP? "Sense of the Senate"? Whoda thunk on a stage with Biden and Dodd that Hillary would be the one with Senate-it-is?!!

10:08 pm ET: Where was that Obama answer going? I'm sort of surprised he didn't have something more concise to say on Social Security, since he's identified it as a Clinton inconsistency.

10:06 pm ET: From ABC's Jake Tapper: All the Republicans are running against Clinton. All the Democrats are running against Bush . . . except for Biden, who is focusing on Rudy Giuliani. Interesting.

10:03 pm ET: Don't double talk around Tim Russert! Clinton is still maintaining that she has a real position on Social Security. "Fiscal responsibility" is nice if you want to try to balance the budget, but that does not -- and will not ever -- fix Social Security.

10:02 pm ET: Biden just had a great moment. He has lots of them. Maybe it won't ever matter, but maybe they add up.

10:01 pm ET: Biden knows Democrats love attacks on Republicans, and not just Bush, but Rudy Giuliani. Laugh line of the night: "There's only three things he makes in a sentence: A noun and a verb and 9/11. . . . He is genuinely not qualified to be president."

9:54 pm ET: Richarson is the one defending Clinton: "Pretty close to personal attacks." Now he's the one trying to rise above -- what's his play here? Then he attacks Clinton's electability, by pointing out that senators are rarely elected president. And really, governor, you don't agree with Sen. Clinton about a "majority" of the issues?

9:52 pm ET: Obama's answer about his own experience isn't bad, but why wouldn't he hit that one out of the park? The blizzard of bills he worked on -- he sounds like, God forbid, a senator.

9:50 pm ET: Another good Edwards line: "If people want the status quo, than they want Sen. Clinton."

9:48 pm ET: From ABC's David Chalian: Obama's cleanest swipe of the campaign on Clinton library records. . . Not turning the page -- you can't claim this as your experience and then be secretive about it. Republicans obsessed with HRC is a fight they are comfortable having."

9:46 pm ET: "All of the [healthcare] records, so far as I know . . . are already available." -- Clinton. That's just not true, and Obama calls her on it: "This is an example of not turning the page." "Part of what we have to do is invite the American people back in our government again." And here comes another fresh attack: "What we don't need is another eight years of bickering." SEE ENTRY AT 10:28 PM FOR UPDATE

9:44 pm ET: Clinton: "In a perverse way, I think the Republicans and their constant obsession with me obviously means they think I'm communicating effectively." Good answer, odd word choice.

9:37 pm ET: Edwards seems to be drawing sharp distinctions tonight as well. But look at Clinton's face -- it DOES NOT MOVE while he goes on the attack, even when it's not fair. Clinton's response: "I stand for ending the war in Iraq, bringing the troops home. But also know that it's going to get complicated, and it's going to take time."

9:35 pm ET: Now it's about "credibility" for Obama. He is taking Clinton on from so many different directions tonight, I've lost count.

9:33 pm ET: Clinton is strong, concise, and sharp tonight. She is finding ways to contrast herself with the Bush administration even while defending herself. That's not easy, particularly given the advanced publicity surrounding all the aggressiveness we're expecting.

9:30 pm ET: Not to harp on Richardson for this, but does he seem like he's playing outside his weight class when the discussion turns to foreign policy? Sort of surprising for a guy with that much experience in the realm.

9:28 pm ET: Give Biden bonus points for a deep answer as well on foreign policy. So far, this is some serious substance -- a wonk's dream.

9:25 pm ET: "You asked me if I would pledge, and I have pledged." -- Clinton, sounding, shall we say, Clintonian. Then Obama gets a bit deeper: "We have been governed by fear these past six years." THERE is the link to his campaign message that was missing earlier this evening. It does seem like the Obama camp has plotted this out a good bit this evening.

9:23 pm ET: Kucinich has a good line: "We have a number of enablers who happen to be Democrats." Then he brings up impeachment. Filling the Gravel role well.

9:22 pm ET: Where is Bill Richardson going in this answer? He just emptied the kitchen sink on Iran -- not the clear message he wanted in his first question.

9:20 pm ET: Edwards' line about how this "sounds familiar" is an effective way into the debate over Iran. "It literally gave Bush and Cheney exactly what they wanted." "Literally the language of the neocons." "How in the world is that . . . Democrats standing up to this president?"

9:18 pm ET: This actually is a real difference in foreign policy, though you have to wade through some deep spin to get there. The shorthand is Clinton as tougher than Obama, but Obama's more nuanced view does seem like the cleaner break from Bush.

9:16 pm ET: Obama: "I don't think we should be talking about attacking Iran at this point." Notice that Obama is talking about "the kinds" of foreign policy -- not just Bush foreign policy. In his formulation, Bush foreign policy IS Clinton foreign policy.

9:13 pm ET: Another thought on Obama -- he seemed to be shifting his message from "judgment" to "flip-flops." It may be a tough case to make against someone as well-known as Hillary Clinton, but it's definitely a different tack.

9:12 pm ET: So far, Sen. Clinton is acting as if she is alone on the stage. Clearly a strategy of non-engagement.

9:07 pm ET: Edwards is just as aggressive as Obama, but we're not hearing new language from him yet. Yet if tonight is going to be a pile-on on Clinton, who is going to come out on top? Edwards says "double talk," Clinton replies, essentially, c'mon, you know me. "I have a long record of standing up and fighting," she said. "On specific issues, I have very specific plans." (Though her "very specific plan" on Social Security really isn't anything beyond a "bipartisan commission." Good, poll-tested lines, but that's not an answer, senator.)

9:05 pm ET: Clinton chose not to respond on a personal level to Obama. She's doing what she normally does -- rising above. But can that last tonight?

9:03 pm ET: Brian Williams wastes no time -- jumps right in by asking Obama to back up his promise of being more aggressive. Obama: "Some of this stuff gets overhyped." Good Philadelphia reference with Rocky -- but WHO hyped this fight if not Barack Obama? And here it is: "It does not mean changing positions whenever it's politically convenient." NAFTA, torture, Iraq -- there's the beginning of your laundry list. "what we need right now is honesty with the American people."

8:51 pm ET: We're just about ready to rumble -- and what makes this debate different already is that we essentially know the storyline in advance. It's Obama vs. Clinton -- but how that shakes down depends on what happens on stage. And to make it fun, it looks like they're going to be next to each other on stage.

-----------

Rick Klein from ABC's The Note here -- I'll be online starting at 9 pm ET tonight, blogging from Philadelphia during the Democratic debate. All eyes will be on Barack Obama, as he seeks to deliver on his promise of a sharper series of distinctions with Hillary Clinton. But here's a fascinating piece of pre-debate spin: Clinton strategist Mark Penn is out with a memo seeking to define "the politics of hope" for Obama -- and claiming the label for Clinton herself.

Writes Penn, "Does the 'politics of hope' mean launching attacks on one candidate? Or does it mean laying out a vision for the American people? Does it mean questioning a rival's integrity? Or does it mean talking about the change we need?"

This is some serious spin -- what gives Clinton the right to define Obama's own term? Surely the Clinton campaign would consider any comparison an attack, but that's not a fair standard to judge Obama, John Edwards, or any other candidate on, is it?

Interested in your thoughts before we begin...

5:50 pm ET: I can't ever imagine this much pre-debate spin. The Edwards campaign fires back with its own memo, from campaign manager David Bonior: "Unfortunately, the Clinton campaign has made it clear -- through its choices, its words and its silence -- that it intends to defend the broken system in Washington, where the interests of the American people are bought and sold every day by an army of lobbyists, instead of taking the path that the American people want -– a path that leads to ending the corruption in Washington and bringing the big, bold change we need to America."

7:45 pm ET: We're a little more than hour out -- two quick pieces of buzz. First, and no surprise here, but the stakes are huge for Sen. Obama -- and he made them that big by building up expectations that he would go on attack. Here's a prediction: He'll be the storyline -- in a bad way -- if he doesn't have new things to say that really set himself apart from Sen. Clinton. And the other thing I'll share is that the best thing that could have happened to Mike Gravel is his exclusion from the debate stage. All the reporters I'm talking to are secretly wishing they could be at his mock debate, with him and a Tivo machine, down the street in Philadelphia.

October 30, 2007 in Tancredo, Tom | Permalink | User Comments (46)

'08 Dems Lobby Against Bush's AG Pick

October 30, 2007 3:00 PM

ABC News' Z. Byron Wolf Reports: The tit-for-tat Democratic president campaign made its way into the U.S. Senate Tuesday, where a number of the candidates have their day jobs.

At 10:35am this morning, reporters got an email from the press office of Senator Barack Obama saying that the Illinois Democrat would be opposing Judge Michael Mukasey, the President's nominee to replace Alberto Gonzales as Attorney General.

"While his legal credentials are strong, his views on two critical and related matters are, in my view, disqualifying," wrote Obama.

"We don't need another attorney general who believes that the President enjoys an unwritten right to secretly ignore any law or abridge our constitutional freedoms simply by invoking national security. And we don't need another attorney general who looks the other way on issues as profound as torture. Judge Mukasey's professed ignorance of the debate over the propriety of practices like 'waterboarding,' or simulated drowning, as a means of interrogation, was appalling," Obama wrote.

At 1:11 a similar email came from the office of New York Senator Hillary Clinton.

"Judge Mukasey has been given ample opportunity –- both at his confirmation hearings and in his subsequent submission to the Judiciary Committee –- to clarify his answers and categorically oppose the unacceptable interrogation techniques employed by this Administration.  His failure to do so leaves me no choice but to oppose his nomination," she said.

Clinton and Obama are days behind Sen. Chris Dodd, who announced his plans to opposed Mukasey on Sunday and had spoken out against the nominee weeks ago.

"Mr. Mukasey's position that the President does not have to heed the law disqualifies him from being the chief attorney for the United States. We have seen for too long, and at great expense to our national security, an Administration that has systematically attacked the rule of law and turned our Justice Department into a poltical wing of the White House. I'm afraid that Mr. Mukasey as Attorney General would be more of the same," read the email from Dodd's campaign office on Sunday.

They're the only three senators to officially oppose Mukasey. All three are technically jumping the gun because Mukasey he has yet to submit all of his written answers on the torture question to the Judiciary Committee.

Mukasey did submit written testimony before his hearing and on Friday he responded to a letter from Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy on the subject torture, but there are formal letters from other Democratic members of the committee and ranking Republican Sen. Arlen Specter that have yet to be answered.

HERE is the letter from Mukasey to Leahy.

Today, Mukasey updated his stance on torture, specifically the practice of waterboarding in a letter to ten Democrats on the Judiciary Committee. While he says that he finds certain coercive techniques "personally repugnant," he does not dismiss them out of hand since he is not read in to all top secret US detainee circumstances. He says that to render judgment based on hypothetical information would be improper.

"Some of you told me at the hearing or in private meeting that you hoped and expected that, if confirmed, I would exercise by independent judgment when providing advice to the President, regardless of whiter that advice was what the President wanted to hear," writes Mukasey in the letter to the Democrats. "I told you that it would be irresponsible for me to do anything less. It would be no less irresponsible for me to seek confirmation by providing an uninformed legal opinion based on hypothetical facts and circumstances."

Senator John McCain, who has strong views on torture as a former POW and is seeking the Republican ticket for president, expressed reservations in an interview with ABC News' George Stephanopoulos this weekend, but did not say he would oppose the nominee.

Other anti-torture Senators are reserving judgment -- Judiciary Committee Democrats Patrick Leahy of Vermont, Dick Durbin of Illinois, Teddy Kennedy of Massachusetts and even Russ Feingold of Wisconsin are waiting for Mukasey to officially answer the questions before opposing him (if they ultimately oppose him).

This is not the first time that Clinton and Obama have announced their opinions on a controversial issue nearly within moments. Both announced their plans for a way forward in Iraq within days of each other early this year.

In May, Clinton and Obama held out to the end before voting, nearly in tandem, against a supplemental appropriations bill that funded the Iraq war without a Democratic plan for phased redeployment.

Then, too, Dodd was in front. He had announced days before the vote that he would oppose that bill.

October 30, 2007 in Tancredo, Tom | Permalink | User Comments (7)

Ron Paul on 'Tonight' Tonight

October 30, 2007 10:33 AM

ABC News' Z. Byron Wolf Reports: All the millions of dollars he has raised and his growing online army of supporters are evidence that Ron Paul is to be taken seriously as a Republican presidential candidate.

But the proof could come tonight, when the Texas congressman and Libertarian Republican appears on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno.

Sure, he's been on The Daily Show and the Colbert Report -- but face it, those programs are on cable TV.

Their audiences are a fraction of the six or so million viewers that Jay Leno gets every night on network television. So, while Paul's appearance tonight will be a thorough examination of the issues, it will mark his entrance into the larger public zeitgeist.

While neither frontrunner in the polls has appeared on The Tonight Show as a presidential candidate, other candidates have used Leno's couch to humanize themselves or make subtle jabs at their competitors or kick off their entire campaigns.

Senator John McCain was self deprecating to Leno in August. He admitted "mistakes were made" in his campaign and suggested maybe he should have announced his campaign on The Tonight Show.

One week later, former Tennesee Senator Fred Thompson did just that when he announced his late entrance to the Presidential field on The Tonight Show. And he did so to millions more than saw his rivals in a debate held the same night.

Former Massachussetts Governor Mitt Romney talked on The Tonight Show about being a Mormon.

Former Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., talked about his wife's cancer.

Earlier this month, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., took the opportunity to tacitly compare Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y. to President Bush.

Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., told Leno about the tragedy of losing his wife to a car accident.

But Paul has made a point of his campaign that his message is more important than his personality. It is unclear how the erudite hero to libertarians everywhere will perform in Burbank, where personality is the message.

October 30, 2007 in Thompson, Fred | Permalink | User Comments (20)

Obama Unplugged – Obama Talks With the MTV Generation

October 29, 2007 6:47 PM

ABC News' Sunlen Miller Reports: The MTV/My Space dialogue with Sen. Barck Obama D-Ill., Monday may not have yielded such memorable moments a la the Bill Clinton "boxers or briefs" moment, but some lighter moments did made it into the mix.

Asked by a student at Coe College in Cedar Rapids who would play him in a movie, Obama responded with Will Smith, "because his ears match mine," referencing both of their large ears.

"In terms of my wife, there's no body that good looking," Obama retorted as to who might play his wife, Michelle Obama.

Asked about his newest opponent for the Democratic nomination, Comedy Central's Stephen Colbert, Obama joked, "I’m going for the Jon Stewart endorsement to off set the Colbert factor."

Saying that he and Colbert would have a "grit off" in South Carolina, Obama said Colbert's candidacy says something about the way that young people get their news, and the larger main stream media. Obama urged for more straight talk on the nightly news, "if I were running the networks…I would puncture the hypocrisy that seems so prevalent in the political process."

When asked if he'd be willing to run on the ticket with senator Clinton, either as her Vice President, or vice versa, Obama responded flatly, "no, because I’m not running for Vice President, I’m running for president of the United States."

The forum was also a prime time to ask about Obama's reported intention to step up his aggressiveness in showing differences with Senator Clinton. When asked how he could do this while still retaining the positive message of the "politics of hope" which Obama pushed early on in the campaign, Obama responded that the politics of hope "Is not based on just all of us holding hands and singing kumbaya….she and I have differences, and it’s important to know what those differences are, as long as there’s nothing personal about it."

Obama was also asked about the controversy after having a gospel singer, Donnie McClurkin, who made anti-gay comments in the past, appear at an Obama event this past weekend.

Saying he disagrees with McClurkin's views Obama replied that he wants to reach out to those who have a different attitude on these ideas, "We’ve got to get beyond some of the homophobia that still exists."

October 29, 2007 in Tancredo, Tom | Permalink | User Comments (5)

Giuliani Says Dems Will Change Mind About Iraq War

October 29, 2007 5:30 PM

ABC News' Jan Simmonds Reports:  Rudy Giuliani said at a town hall meeting Monday that he thinks the Democrats are going to change their minds about the Iraq War and again support it.

"Do I think the mission in Iraq is the correct one? I think without a doubt it is," Giuliani said in Londonderry, New Hampshire. "And I think the Democrats are gonna change their mind about it again."

Giuliani went on to describe how Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., and John Edwards, D-N.C., both were initially in favor of invading Iraq, having voted that way in the Senate, but have since "changed their minds about it." 

"I think Edwards has apologized for it. She (Hillary Clinton) hasn't apologized for it but she said it was a mistake, but it was George Bush's mistake. I guess he got her to vote that way," he said.

The former Mayor of New York went on to tell the crowd, of over 250 people, again that he thought over time the Democrats will change their minds about the Iraq War and that "over time history will show it was the right decision."

October 29, 2007 in Thompson, Fred | Permalink | User Comments (19)

Rudy's Fuzzy Healthcare Math

October 29, 2007 3:36 PM

ABC News' Rick Klein Reports: To hear Rudy Giuliani describe it in his new radio ad, the British medical system is a scary place.

"My chance of surviving prostate cancer -- and thank God I was cured of it -- in the United States: 82 percent," Giuliani says in a new radio spot airing in New Hampshire. "My chances of surviving prostate cancer in England: Only 44 percent, under socialized medicine."

But the data Giuliani cites comes from a single study published eight years ago by a not-for-profit group, and is contradicted by official data from the British government.

According to the United Kingdom’s Office for National Statistics, for men diagnosed with prostate cancer between 1999 and 2003, the "five-year survival rate" -- a common measurement in cancer statistics -- was 74.4 percent.

The statistics show that the five-year survival rate for prostate cancer victims in the UK has been steadily rising to approach the survival rate Giuliani cited for the United States.

The 74.4 percent survival rate "was 3.6 percentage points higher than the rate of 70.8 per cent for men diagnosed during 1998-2001," according to a British government report published in August.

In releasing the ad, the Giuliani campaign cited statistics published in an article in the Summer 2007 issue of City Journal, an urban-policy magazine that Giuliani has pronounced himself a fan of. The article, "The Ugly Truth About Canadian Health Care," was written by David Gratzer, a physician who is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and is a healthcare adviser to the Giuliani campaign.

"And if we measure a health-care system by how well it serves its sick citizens, American medicine excels. Five-year cancer survival rates bear this out," Gratzer writes. "The survival rate for prostate cancer is 81.2 percent here, yet 61.7 percent in France and down to 44.3 percent in England -- a striking variation."

The article did not name a source for those statistics. Through a spokeswoman, Gratzer said he was relying on data compiled for a 2000 study by the Commonwealth Fund, a not-for-profit foundation that supports health research.

Maria Comella, a Giuliani campaign spokesman, said the former New York City mayor is an avid reader of City Journal and found the passage in the article himself. He cited the statistics at a campaign stop, and the campaign used a recording from that appearance in the radio advertisement.

The campaign did not attempt to independently verify the statistics, Comella said.

"The citation is an article in a highly respected intellectual journal written by an expert at a highly respected think tank which the mayor read because he is an intellectually engaged human being," she said.

Don McCanne, a senior health policy fellow at Physicians for a National Health Program, conceded that the five-year survival rate for cancer diagnoses is higher in the United States than in many countries that have single-payer systems, though the disparity is not as great as Giuliani claims in his ad.

But he said that any such comparison is flawed, since it fails to take into account the additional investment in cancer education and screening in the United States. Much of the gap would be closed if other countries invested similar sums in catching cancer early.

If all Americans had access to preventive care, screenings, and treatment -- through a single-payer system or another universal healthcare plan -- the five-year survival rate would almost certainly be increased, since cancers would be caught sooner.

"It's not a result of the healthcare-financing issue. That's not what this is about at all," McCanne said. "Under a universal system, we would increase access to preventive screening."

October 29, 2007 in Thompson, Fred | Permalink | User Comments (47)

Cindy McCain Won't Fund Husband's Bid

October 29, 2007 2:45 PM

ABC News' Cynthia McFadden and Rick Klein Report: Sen. John McCain's wife, Cindy, is ruling out making personal financial contributions to her husband's struggling campaign for president, saying that the she and her husband are committed to funding his race via small contributions from donors.

In an interview to air on ABC's "Nightline" Tuesday night, Cindy McCain said they will not reconsider that decision, even though McCain, R-Ariz., is contemplating taking public financing to help keep his campaign afloat.

"I haven't put any money into the campaign -- my husband has never believed that we should do that," Mrs. McCain says. "He has always said, you know, 'I run on my own merits, and if I cant convince the people that I'm the guy, we're not going to do it by, you know we don’t need to do it by [self-funding the campaign.]' We need to convince everybody else that we’re the right family and he’s the right guy for this."

Asked if using personal funds would be like "trying to buy" the presidency, McCain responded: "Yeah. Yeah, we wouldn’t do that so it -- we never have done it. We have a record in the history for that so it's just part of [that.]"

Cindy McCain is the biggest stockholder and chairman of the board of Hensley & Co., one of the nation's largest Anheuser-Busch distributors. Her fortune is the bulk of the estimated $25 million to $38 million that the couple is worth.

Federal law limits candidates' spouses to contributing no more than $2,300 to campaigns -- the same limit that applies to all other individuals. But by borrowing against shared assets, candidates can use their spouses' wealth to provide considerably more help.

One of McCain's rivals for the GOP nomination, former governor Mitt Romney, R-Mass., has already put in $17.5 million of his own money to fund his bid. McCain told the New York Times Magazine in July that while he wouldn't criticize other candidates for spending their own money, he felt that getting small donations is "part of whether you can succeed or fail."

"I should be able to raise my own money from contributors or take matching funds according to the law, not dip into my wife’s assets," McCain said.

With McCain's campaign carrying about as much debt as he has cash on hand, he is considering taking federal matching funds for his run. Such a decision, however, limits the money available to him in early-voting states.

October 29, 2007 in Thompson, Fred | Permalink | User Comments (18)

Giuliani Picks Up Nancy Johnson Endorsement

October 29, 2007 1:26 PM

ABC News' Jan Simmonds Reports: Rudy Giuliani, R-N.Y., will receive the endorsement  of former U.S. Congresswoman Nancy Johnson, R-Conn., Monday afternoon.

Johnson served in Congress from 1983 through 2007, and is known for her work on health care, an issue the Giuliani camp has been pushing with a new radio ad and direct mailing in New Hampshire.

The former Congresswoman co-authored the Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit program, which took effect in 2006, giving the former New York mayor's campaign a well regarded surrogate on health care issues.

In 2006, Johnson, targeted by MoveOn.org, lost her bid for reelection to Democrat Chris Murphy.

October 29, 2007 in Thompson, Fred | Permalink | User Comments (1)

Cheney Embarks on Annual Hunting Trip

October 29, 2007 11:09 AM

ABC News' Jennifer Duck Reports: As Vice President Cheney embarks on his annual hunting trip today, it's hard to forget what happened last year when the Wyoming native accidentally shot a good friend while hunting quail in Texas.

The Vice President shot his hunting companion Harry Whittington in the torso, neck and face.  President Bush openly jokes about the February 2006 shooting accident which landed Whittington in the hospital for six days. 

While visiting St. Michaels, Maryland last week, President Bush said, "The Vice President tells me there's a lot of fine fishing here, and I'm looking forward to going out and trying to catch some.  I love to fish.  And the good news there's a lot of good fishing here is because the Secret Service won't let me go hunting with him."

The accident was kept from the press and most senior staff for a few days. 

Shortly after the accident, Vice President Cheney explained it was "one of the worst days" of his life.  "...the image of him falling is something I'll never be able to get out of my mind. I fired, and there's Harry falling. And it was, I'd have to say, one of the worst days of my life, at that moment," Vice President Cheney said last year.

The Vice President has been hunting a few times since the accidental shooting.  Cheney will go hunting near Poughkeepsie, NY today.

October 29, 2007 in Vote 2008: Democrats | Permalink | User Comments (12)