January 2nd, 2008
07:45 AM ET
2 years ago

The Best Political Podcast

ALT TEXT

WASHINGTON (CNN) - CNN started 2008 with a political bang in the form of Ballot Bowl.

If you missed CNN's wall-to-wall political coverage Tuesday, the first Best Political Podcast of 2008 has highlights for you.

Senior Political Analyst Bill Schneider also reports on a new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Iowa poll.

Former Senator John Edwards speaks with Wolf Blitzer about his chief rivals - Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton - and about the recent support Edwards received from Ralph Nader.

Finally, will the legalization of same-sex civil unions in New Hampshire have any impact on who turns out for the Granite State's first-in-the-nation primary on January 8? Brian Todd takes a look a week before the voting in New Hampshire.

Click here to subscribe to The Best Political Podcast.

–CNN Associate Producer Martina Stewart

soundoff (6 Responses)
  1. TrueHawk, St. Croix, USVI

    CNN is doing a good job, as they are "equal opportunity aggravators." A lot of conservatives are finding that FOX News, while not just leaning toward conservatives, leans towards them slectively, and wonders if they are taking orders from Ales and following the lead of Drudge and Rush to beat up on Huckabee and McCain while downplaying Thompson as well. They have become the Mitt News Network.

    January 2, 2008 06:31 am at 6:31 am |
  2. Duncan, Richmond, VA

    How on earth is Thompson polling more than Ron Paul? I really don't get it. What possible reason is there for anyone to support Thompson based on his policies and character?

    Seriously, I am really interested..

    January 2, 2008 08:06 am at 8:06 am |
  3. Theo Nelson

    As The National Review outlined so well:

    Many conservatives are finding it difficult to pick a presidential candidate. Each of the men running for the Republican nomination has strengths, and none has everything — all the traits, all the positions — we are looking for. Equally conservative analysts can reach, and have reached, different judgments in this matter. There are fine conservatives supporting each of these Republicans.

    Our guiding principle has always been to select the most conservative viable candidate. In our judgment, that candidate is Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts. Unlike some other candidates in the race, Romney is a full-spectrum conservative: a supporter of free-market economics and limited government, moral causes such as the right to life and the preservation of marriage, and a foreign policy based on the national interest. While he has not talked much about the importance of resisting ethnic balkanization — none of the major candidates has — he supports enforcing the immigration laws and opposes amnesty. Those are important steps in the right direction.
    Romney is an intelligent, articulate, and accomplished former businessman and governor. At a time when voters yearn for competence and have soured on Washington because too often the Bush administration has not demonstrated it, Romney offers proven executive skill. He has demonstrated it in everything he has done in his professional life, and his tightly organized, disciplined campaign is no exception. He himself has shown impressive focus and energy.

    Since almost all of the candidates have the same foreign-policy principles, what matters most is which candidate has the skills to execute that vision.

    We believe that Romney is a natural ally of social conservatives. He speaks often about the toll of fatherlessness in this country. He may not have thought deeply about the political dimensions of social issues until, as governor, he was confronted with the cutting edge of social liberalism. No other Republican governor had to deal with both human cloning and court-imposed same-sex marriage. He was on the right side of both issues, and those battles seem to have made him see the stakes of a broad range of public-policy issues more clearly. He will work to put abortion on a path to extinction. Whatever the process by which he got to where he is on marriage, judges, and life, we’re glad he is now on our side — and we trust him to stay there.

    More than the other primary candidates, Romney has President Bush’s virtues and avoids his flaws. His moral positions, and his instincts on taxes and foreign policy, are the same. But he is less inclined to federal activism, less tolerant of overspending, better able to defend conservative positions in debate, and more likely to demand performance from his subordinates. A winning combination, by our lights. In this most fluid and unpredictable Republican field, we vote for Mitt Romney.

    The National Review, December 2007

    January 2, 2008 10:41 am at 10:41 am |
  4. Anonymous

    this sucks

    January 3, 2008 09:41 am at 9:41 am |
  5. Lynn J. Stewart

    Hello.

    I am 74 years young, and have been involved through out these years with ground roots politics in the Democratic Party, in the South.

    What Oprah Winfrey is doing for Obama is just not right. Because of her money and fame, she wants to put her choice in the White House. Most of us do not have her money or fame to help our candidate. I have nothing against Obama, but, he should not be given such high status because of her riches. Yes, she should help her candidate. But, how much is right? I might have voted for him, but, I still don't think it's right for one person to use her wealth and position to put our President in the White House. He will belong to her, that's for sure.

    J Lynn Stewart
    A NC Democrat

    January 4, 2008 02:19 pm at 2:19 pm |
  6. Ted Monkman

    Mike huckabee joins George Bush in fracturing the "Kings" English
    along with nucular we now have "irregardless??? at 5:20 ET

    January 6, 2008 05:23 pm at 5:23 pm |