NYT CAPTION: “Jeanine F. Pirro was handed the missing page to her speech on Wednesday after a 32-second pause as she searched for it.” [I’m wondering how you all will rewrite this caption.]
So, Jeanine “I’m-a-pontificating-pundit-and-world-expert-on-the-Michael-Jackson-and Scott-Peterson-trials” Pirro is running against Hillary.
The NYT writes that her campaign got off to a “rocky” start today and that, “[c]onspicuous in his absence was her husband, Albert, whose personal and legal problems have proved a liability in Ms. Pirro’s career.” It’s said he has “mob ties.” And the NYT says “Mr. Pirro fathered a child with another woman in the 1990’s, and in 2000 he was convicted of income tax fraud and spent 11 months in prison.” Her Web site has no photos of Mr. Pirro.
Pressed for an answer, Ms. Pirro said: “The specifics of that – it’s my first day on the campaign, I will certainly be able to give you the exact numbers of the federal deficit.”
On Iraq, Ms. Pirro would not answer a question about troop withdrawal, saying that she would “leave that up to the experts” and that she lacked the information to say whether she would support sending more troops to Iraq. … NYT
A little short on specifics. Think Greta Van Susteren will show up with her on campaign stops?
SSSSSSSSSSSSSsweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet!!
I saw a bunch of clips from her, uh, performance today…I’ve seen children who were more prepared to give a speech than she was. It made me hope she wins the primary!
Ha! I almost did a diary on this but thought better of it at the last minute.
As usual, great minds think alike, Sue.
Well, I felt kind of badly putting in that stuff about her husband, but it is a bit of a concern… the NYT also said he’s a prominent Republican donor.
Another report said she could have run for state Attorney General and probably won.
There is no sense in trying to play fairly with those who refuse to do the same.
I need to develop a taste for the jugular 😉
That would have been an interesting scenario, particularly if Richard Brodsky, another Westchesterian (and the one most in the Spitzer mold, in my mind), managed to get the Dem nomination for AG.
Oh well.
A woman running for public office whose husband has questionable business associates and how the right-wing press socks it to you? Geraldine Ferrarro could tell Ms. Pirro a thing or two.
Oh? The husband is a Republican? My error. That changes everything.
Nevertheless, Hillary will dump New York, run for president, and a Republican will pounce on her Senate seat.
Almost 2/3 of people in the state, of all party affiliations, want her to promise to serve out her term. They want her to be honest about it at least. But she refuses to comment. When she ditches, people are going to be pissed off and feel used.
Oh yay. I can’t wait. What a choice – a cruddy Republican now, or a cruddy Republican later.
to the numbers you spout out? Perhaps you mean 2/3’s of upstate New York…Please provide proof in regards to the numbers you are throwing around.
Try the latest Quinnipiac poll. Question 16. Should Hillary pledge to serve her full term?
Answering “Yes” to this question:
Republicans: 62%
Democrats: 59%
Independents: 62%
Men: 57%
Women: 62%
Upstate urban: 60%
Upstate “other”: 59%
New York City: 60%
Seems pretty unequivocal across the board to me.
Further comment… this is what you get when you engage in carpetbag politics. People like the job Hillary’s done as senator, but they are very ambivalent about her presidential ambitions. They also don’t think, frankly, that they will ever get such good/influential representation in the Senate again. And may very well wind up with a Republican after she leaves.
The Syracuse Post-Standard, which is not a terribly conservative paper these days, had an editorial today calling on her to be forthright about her intentions, casting it as a matter of “respect” for the NY electorate.
What are we supposed to do? Just play along and smile and swallow the bullshit? Are we supposed to go to the polls and pretend we’re voting for another senator, when we’re really not, we’re voting for 1/3 of a senator? People in New York are very sick of bullshit these days. Of course, Pirro seems incompetent and won’t be much of a challenge to Clinton, but I know several Democrats who are not going to vote for Hillary either if she doesn’t come clean.
I wish she would just come out and be forthright about it. People would feel better voting for her then if she was just honest. There is a right way to do things and a wrong way. For her to grin and bullshit her way through this campaign is going to produce a feeling of being used – with no lasting return for the state. It’s not like her being senator has strengthened the state party at all, either.
Has any Senator ever told the people while running that if they are elected they are going to dump them to run for President? My other question is …Why would a Rep more likely replace her? Also I just heard on Olberman that there has never been, in the history of NY, A Democrat who has not won Re-election when they ran for it. I am just so tired of people dumping on Hillary. I know she is a hawk as far as Military and stuff..but I wish people would give her a break for a while. I think it would be really Cool if Hillary is the First Female President of the United States. She couldn’t fuck it up anywhere near as badly as all the men have done. I, for one, am ready for a Woman to be president..we are long over due.
Of course Hillary’s going to win, that’s a foregone conclusion. But how she conducts her campaign is still important because it influences what comes after her, how people feel about the parties and such.
You know… SOMEONE in New York is voting for Bloomberg, Pataki, D’Amato… Republicans can occasionally cough up a live one, and Democrats can lose. I don’t think Hillary can, but what happens after her?
their seat when running again. Still I ask. Why would a Repub take her seat? If Hillary loses the Pres then she stays the Jr. Senator from NYC. Dick Morris is on H & C now..he is so disgusting. Why do they take all these hidious people who are crooks, liars, con artists, and Jail birds and give them jobs?
It’s difficult for me to give a break to hawk, or a sheep in hawk’s clothing. Difficult to know, isn’t it.
Hmmm. I would think having a president from New York would outweigh any potential dissatisfaction the electorate might have in this regard.
The question doesn’t ask whether or not she should run for president, therefore the results are as meaningless as asking whether she should show up for work tomorrow.
And I live in the Hudson River Valley, so I’m not some downstater.
Hmmm. I would think having a president from New York would outweigh any potential dissatisfaction the electorate might have in this regard.
Hillary’s from New York?
Go peddle your silliness elsewhere.
you know what he/she meant. don’t act foolish or trollish.
My response was a serious point.
She isn’t from New York other than having just enough residency here to run for the Senate. I mean, she came here so she could be a Senator and advance her political career. That is cool, but why New Yorkers would feel they had “one of their own” in the White House if she won the presidency is kind of stretching it a bit.
And if I’m a troll for not following the script on Hillary to the letter, I guess I’ll just have to take the label.
I didn’t say you were a troll, I say “don’t act foolish or trollish” …the other comment was totally within bounds. Hillary is the JR. Senator FROM NEW YORK PERIOD and yes..that is where she would be from. Why do you have such a bug up your ass regarding Hillary? Regardless of being from Ill. and then Arkansas. Hillary Clinton has always been an urban/city person and all of my New York friends LOVE HER and Support her 100% including what little Republican friends I have.
Actually, New York state has a long history of welcoming outsiders who want to run for national office.
New York is the Empire State. I’ve always take this to mean that we are the unofficial capitol of the nation. We were the first capitol, if you’ll take a moment to recall. Because the nation’s capitol has no senate members, the next best thing is to run in New York.
I, for one, welcomed Hillary into the state. Do I like her always? No. She’s far too conservative for my blood. But she has done an excellent job for New York, I must give her that.
Whether New Yorkers will turn against her if she runs for president? I think you’re way off target. New York would have supported Bobby — emphatically.
They will support Hillary, as well, if she wins the nomination.
I’m a Feingold man, myself, so this argument is pretty much moot in my book.
we have to worry about a Republican getting her Senate seat; won’t Governor Spitzer appoint a Democrat for the last four years of the term, then be able to run as the incumbent?
[just some hopeful speculation…]
Man I have to agree… Compared to Bruno, Schumer, Pataki, and especially spitzer… I have to say Hillary is one of my favorite players in NY politics…
But the double speak is annoying… I will still vote for hillary whether she is running for pres in 08 or not… Just be damn honest about it.
I honestly would like someone to really challenge Schumer one of these days since he likes to challenge my video games… that’s just my personal beef.
The Repugs put her up as Hillary’s challenger and apparently provide little support. I guess that’s what you should expect as a sacrificial lamb.
I think Keith is going to do a bit on this in a few minutes.
And Ms. Pirro literally talks out the side of her mouth. And she’s had way too much plastic surgery. Her eyebrows don’t move and has that perpetual surprised look.
There was a discussion of this on the Ed Schultz show today where I believe it was Ed who suggested that Ms. Pirro was running at the behest of the WH. She has a lot of “baggage” that can be used against her, and thus will provide ample opportunity to bring up any scandal that can be associated with Mrs. Clinton. That way the NY Senate race would be as damaging as possible to Hillary, and after losing, Ms. Pirro would surely be offered a judgeship or something. At least that was the speculation, and it sounds perfectly plausible to me.
for her husband’s actions.
Though if she signed the return that he was convicted of tax evasion on, she could be held liable on conspiracy I believe, and even if there’s no conspiracy charge, questions could be validly raised about her judgement.
As for the fathering a child out of wedlock, that shouldn’t even enter the equation; neither Pirro or Clinton should be held responsible for the actions of their spouses zippers.
I’d rather see a fight on the issues, rather than bringing in all this extraneous stuff…
You think that “Does anyone have page 10?” has replaced “Mary, help!” as the plea-to-staff political line of the new millennium.
— from today’s ABC “The Note”
Amusing stuff from today’s ABC The Note: