Howard Fineman has a story up saying AFSCME will endorse Hillary Clinton next week:

http://www.msnbc.msn…

I’m told by labor sources that the endorsement will come next Thursday after a series of AFSCME committee meetings. The union, whose members by definition are no strangers to politics, has 30,000 members in the crucial caucus state of Iowa, plus 90,000 in Michigan and 110,000 in Florida – two other “early” states in the nomination process. 

And so the Clinton Family Machine grinds on.  The president of AFSCME, Gerald McEntee, goes back a long way with the Clintons, to the early stages of the 1992 presidential campaign. McEntee took a flier on a then-obscure governor of Arkansas. The AFSCME endorsement provided Bill Clinton with an important early foothold in a labor movement that had doubts about him. Not surprisingly, McEntee became a White House favorite.

Fineman claims that Bill personally lobbied McEntee and had a lot to do with this endorsement.

Clearly any Democrat would love to get the AFSCME endorsement, and I'd be lying if I said I think it's irrelevant. Yet the largest union in Iowa's recent track record (Dean, Blouin) doesn't suggest that its foot soldiers can deliver the goods.

On Labor Day two women who are very involved in AFSCME in Iowa told me that there was strong support for Edwards and Obama as well as for Hillary within the union's ranks.

It will be interesting to see how much AFSCME is able to add to Hillary's ground game here.

Anyone out there know more about the inner workings of AFSCME in Iowa? How helpful do you think this endorsement will be?

Today, Chase Martyn of the Iowa Independent reviewed a major policy speech by Bill Richardson earlier this week on how to improve the welfare of the human race and our environment.  Martyn is no supporter of Richardson, noting “I expected would be ridden with gaffes, pie-in-the-sky policy proposals, and poll-tested mumbo jumbo. Having not seen Richardson stump in person for a period of two months, I had no idea what I was in for.”

Martyn came away highly impressed.  Martyn described Richardson's speech as “bold and informative.  . . . I dare say he sounded presidential.”

In his speech, Richardson set forth  a global agenda to address the welfare of the human race, linking climate change, poverty, international disease and war.  Richardson stated:  “A hungry world will also hunger for scapegoats. A thirsty world will thirst for revenge. A world in crisis will be a world of anger and violence and terrorism.”

Over at his blog, Iowa True Blue, Gordon Fischer (who has endorsed Obama) raises an important point:

http://www.iowatrueb…  

I think the Clinton campaign's answer is easy to predict, based on comments I see frequently from Clinton supporters at MyDD and Daily Kos.

Iowa is “lily-white” and “not representative” of the whole country. Also, Iowans are sexist (never having sent a woman to Congress).

Of course, Iowa Democrats, who will be attending the Democratic caucuses, are not sexist. We have nominated two women for governor and many other women to statewide positions or Congressional seats.

And while Iowa is largely white, it is socio-economically a fairly “average” state, and in that sense more representative than New Hampshire. 

But that won't stop the Clinton campaign spin if she does falter in the caucuses.

Anyone else want to take a stab at answering Gordon's question?

A few posts down you'll see the news that Selden Spencer abandoned his challenge to Tom Latham in Iowa's 4th Congressional district.

I was wondering what would happen to Spencer's unspent campaign funds, and I got my answer in the mail.

The campaign sent a letter to contributors, including this passage:

You who have financially supported this effort can help now by instructing the exploratory campaign committee on how to close our treasury. There are two options:

1. Tear off and return the form below by October 31, 2007, and we will return a prorated portion of the unspent campaign funds. Please note that unless postmarked by October 31, your request cannot be honored.

2. Do not return the form by October 31, 2007, in which case we will donate the remaining portion of your contribution, along with those of other supporters, to county committees in the 4th District and to the Iowa Democratic Party.

I'm not sending back the form. Let the state and county committees find a good use for the remainder of my contribution to Spencer.

Anyone know who might step up to run against Latham next year? 

Note: this post originally appeared at MyDD, where I write a front-page post in support of John Edwards every Tuesday. Parts of it are aimed at readers who are less familar with Iowa politics than the typical Bleeding Heartland reader.

Although the ten SEIU state chapter endorsements of John Edwards have understandably dominated the recent blogosphere chatter about Edwards, I want to call attention to a different aspect of his campaign. Edwards is on a two-day swing through western and central Iowa, where he is highlighting his policy agenda for small towns and rural areas. When Edwards wins the Iowa caucuses, I believe small-town and rural voters will play as important a role as union members.

Yesterday the Edwards campaign in Iowa announced the formation of a Statewide Rural Advisory Committee. From the campaign website:

The committee consists of a wide group of leaders including first responders, business leaders, elected officials and agricultural leaders. The committee will work with the campaign's 99 Rural County Chairs to advise Edwards on the issues facing rural Iowans and spread his detailed plans to strengthen rural towns and communities across America. Edwards was raised in a small rural town and has made rural revitalization a cornerstone of his campaign. In August, the campaign announced more than 1,000 rural supporters showing Edwards' broad support throughout rural Iowa.

The biggest name on this committee is Denise O'Brien, who endorsed Edwards over the summer and will help him tremendously with progressives as well as rural voters. Denise, an organic farmer and the founder of the Women, Food and Agriculture Network, was the Democratic nominee for secretary of agriculture last year. She shocked Iowa politicos by winning the Democratic primary by a large margin, despite the fact that her opponent, Dusky Terry (a great guy by the way), had the strong backing of Tom Vilsack and virtually the whole Democratic establishment in Iowa.

Denise narrowly lost the general election for secretary of agriculture, but she has many passionate supporters in the Iowa environmentalist community. Environmentalists were a significant factor in John Kerry's caucus victory in Iowa.

But I digress. This post is about rural voters. Most of the people on the Edwards Statewide Rural Advisory Committee may be little-known outside their home counties, but when it comes to turning out caucus-goers, a respected figure from someone's home town is probably even more valuable than a statewide celebrity.

In addition to having a strong team working to turn out rural and small-town voters, Edwards has put forward a solid policy agenda for rural America. You can download his plans on the issues page of his campaign website. Edwards has a deep knowledge of the the issues affecting small-town America, and his current swing through Iowa is focusing on a different aspect of his rural recovery plan at each venue.

His first event yesterday was in Dunlap, Iowa, where he focused on agricultural issues including country-of-origin labeling. He discussed protecting family farms at his next event in Harlan. Later in the day, he held a town hall meeting at a high school in the small town of Exira, where he focused on his plan to strengthen rural schools. (As you probably know, Edwards was educated in rural public schools.)

Edwards' final two events on Tuesday were in Greenfield and Waukee (suburb of Des Moines), where he talked about economic development plans for rural areas, with a focus on main street development and incentives for small business creation. That issue is particularly close to my heart, as both of my grandfathers ran small businesses and I despise so-called economic development plans that are basically just corporate welfare.

Why should you care whether Edwards appeals to rural voters? I mean, besides the fact that his policy ideas are really good?

Well, if you are an Edwards supporter you will be pleased to know that caucus-goers in rural counties punch above their weight when the state delegates are tallied.

But even if Edwards is not your favorite candidate in the primary, you should be aware that a strong showing among rural voters will put many more states into play for our Democratic nominee. ManfromMiddletown made a strong case for this analysis in his diary on electability.

I also refer you to this report from the Center for Rural Strategies:

The rural vote is critical in presidential and congressional elections because large Republican majorities among rural voters have helped overcome Democratic advantages in urban areas. With the rural advantage eroding for the GOP, both parties may look more carefully at the rural vote in the coming elections.

“The rural vote determines presidential elections,” said Dee Davis, president of the nonpartisan Center for Rural Strategies, which sponsors the poll. “Democrats don't win unless they make rural competitive, and Republicans don't win without a large rural victory. So you'd think that would mean the candidates would have a spirited debate on the things that matter to rural Americans, but we haven't heard it yet.”

In the 2004 and especially the 2006 elections, Democrats began to make up ground against the GOP with rural voters. That was a big change from the 1990s, when rural voters swung significantly against the Democratic Party. I believe that John Edwards would be by far the best candidate in our field to continue this trend, which would hurt the GOP badly.

But maybe you don't care about rural voters and are buoyed by opinion polls showing that any of our top Democratic contenders could win a presidential election.

I urge you to consider this: the presidential election is more than 50 statewide elections. It also coincides with 435 House races and thousands of races for the state legislature.

As we know, gerrymandering has helped the GOP control more U.S. House seats than they deserve in states such as Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Florida. Too many Democrats in those states are packed into House districts that send Democrats to Congress with super-majorities. Consequently, many of the House seats we are trying to pick up contain significant numbers of rural and small-town voters.

What that means is that even if any of our candidates could win Ohio (or Pennsylvania, or Michigan, or Florida) in a presidential election, we have a better chance of winning more House seats if our candidate at the top of the ticket is appealing to the rural electorate. Holding down the GOP margin with these voters will bring big gains down-ticket.

The same goes for state legislative districts. If we want to improve our position in state legislatures going into the 2010 census and redistricting process, it will help to have a presidential candidate in 2008 and a president in 2010 who does not alienate rural voters.

All these factors reinforce my belief that John Edwards would be the best general-election candidate in our very strong Democratic field.

Is it just me, or does John Edwards sometimes remind anyone else of your typical superhero?  You know, fighting for the little guy, saving democracy, able to leap tall buildings in a single bound?  Well, OK, maybe not that last one, but the man is inspiring.

Today, John gave a speech in New Hampshire that was all about saving democracy.  After years of having politicians tell us that the best we can expect is incremental change within our broken system, it is quite astounding to hear someone actually tell the truth about what is wrong with our system, and propose major reforms to fix it. To me, having the courage to confront our big problems and offer real solutions makes John a real hero, despite the conspicuous lack of spandex in his wardrobe.

I read over at MyDD that the Iowa chapter of the SEIU is going to endorse John Edwards this Monday afternoon. The diarist also said the California SEIU will endorse Edwards, although that seems less clear from the link:

http://www.mydd.com/…

I don't know how many members SEIU has in Iowa. Clearly it's not the major player that AFSCME is. Still, the endorsement will be welcomed, especially if the NH and CA chapters follow through.

In the comments below the MyDD diary, people are debating whether the California chapter of SEIU would be able to send people to help the Edwards campaign in Iowa, even in the absence of a national SEIU endorsement.

In other news, Tracy Joan of the Edwards campaign put this link up at MyDD's Breaking Blue, in response to the claim that Edwards “lives” in Iowa:

http://www.swamppoli…

If you click through, you will learn that surprisingly, Obama has spent almost as many days campaigning in Iowa this year as Edwards, and Clinton is not far behind.

    Forget about any surge you have heard spoken of over the past summer.  I'm not talking about a military surge in Iraq, or a diplomatic surge for the Middle East; the only surge I'm talking about is the surge of support Joe Biden has created in Iowa.

    Over the past few months, Joe Biden has amassed thirteen state legislator endorsements in the state of Iowa, including that of House Majority Leader, Kevin McCarthy.  This is more than John Edwards, Bill Richardson and just two short of Barack Obama.  The only candidate with more endorsements than Biden is the so-called “foregone conclusion”, Hillary Clinton.  Based upon these facts, one could argue Joe Biden is a top-tier candidate. This is an argument I am willing to make. 

    While his numbers remain low, Joe Biden is one of only two candidates who have increased their percentages throughout the election.  Going from roughly 1% in the polls to upwards of 8%, Joe Biden has increased his support eight-fold.  Once more, the only candidate matching Sen. Biden is Mrs. Clinton.  Though she may be leading in Iowa right now, she ought to have her eyes set steady in her rear-view mirror.  Joe Biden is racing up on the inside.

      Criss-crossing the state of Iowa, Joe Biden has been more active in the state than any other challenger.  As the holidays creep up, Sen Biden has just begun an eleven day visit to the Hawkeye State, connecting with Iowans at every stop.  Attendance at Biden events has swelled.  Early on, perhaps 15-20 people might have shown to watch the Senator speak.  Now a days, events may include anywhere from 200-400 attendees.  

    Now that Joe Biden has laid the groundwork, Iowans are beginning to listen.  Americans are beginning to listen.  With the combination of experience, foresight and charisma Joe Biden is surging in Iowa and around the nation.  His federalist solution for Iraq has gained traction, passing the Senate by a margin of 75-23.  The senator has recently laid out a plan to fix social security as well as education and protecting retirement savings. All I have to say is this:  Clinton, Barack, Edwards, watch out.  Biden is moving on up!

For those of you who can attend lunchtime events in central Iowa:

Join Us for an Unprecedented Bipartisan Summit in Pursuit of a New Way Forward

On Friday, October 12th, Republican presidential candidate Senator Sam Brownback and Democratic presidential candidate Senator Joe Biden will hold an unprecedented joint campaign event to discuss their bipartisan plan for Iraq. The event is hosted by the Greater Des Moines Committee on Foreign Relations.

WHEN: Friday, October 12
12:00 PM to 1:00 PM

WHAT: Biden, Brownback to Outline Iraq Plan

WHERE: Wakonda Country Club
1400 Park Avenue
Des Moines, IA 50315

Details:
This event is open to the public (lunch provided for $25.00). For more information and reservations, contact the Greater Des Moines Committee on Foreign Relations at 515-282-8192.

I understand what Biden is trying to do here–as he has said in many debates, he has a plan for Iraq, and he has experience getting Republicans in Congress to support his agenda.

But this really annoys me. Aside from the fact that I think any partition plan is doomed to fail, Biden is throwing Senate Republicans a life raft. Now they can credibly say that they have voted for a solution to the Iraq problem.

The reality is that Republicans in Congress are still carrying water for the Bush administration on Iraq and everything else, and we need to call them on that. Biden is allowing them to make a show of voting to change course in Iraq, when we all know that this plan is going nowhere.

Five years ago was critical week in the decision by our nation to go to war with Iraq.  While the Senate was debating the war, Edwards gave a well-publicized speech in Washington, D.C. on October  7, 2002, supporting the Bush Administration's rationale for invading Iraq.  

At the time, Edwards was busy planning his run for President and seeking to position himself as a Southern war hawk.  He failed to read key intelligence reports available only to members of the Senate that cast doubt the Bush Administration's claims that Saddam possessed WMD and which influenced those that read them to vote against the war.  

Edwards had made up his mind that the U.S. should invade Iraq.  Edwards' judgment on Iraq was flawed in 2002 and it remains flawed today.  He refuses to commit to the withdrawal of ALL U.S. forces from Iraq by 2010 or even 2013.

“We” being everyone who wants to derail the Hillary inevitability train.

Clinton supporters are crowing about the latest Des Moines Register poll showing her leading likely Democratic voters in Iowa with 29 percent to 23 percent for Edwards, 22 percent for Obama, 8 percent for Richardson and 5 percent for Biden.

Here is the link for the poll:

http://www.desmoines…

Hillary has to be happy not just about her overall lead, but also her lead among voters over 65 and her big lead among women.

It's not good news for the other candidates, but it would be a mistake to say Hillary is going to cruise in Iowa. I think she is going to lose delegates when people go to their second choices on caucus night.

Edwards has dropped since May, but he hasn't been up on the air, while all of the other major candidates have blanketed the airwaves for two months or more. Despite that, he still leads among men and middle-aged Iowa voters. He is building a strong organization to identify and turn out supporters. I totally disagree with those who say he has no room to grow his support in Iowa.

Obama is holding steady. If he were my first choice, I'd be worried about the fact that he trails badly among older voters and does best among groups that are relatively unlikely to caucus (under 45 or independent). Clearly Obama needs to turn out record numbers of independents and first-time caucus-goers if he is going to win Iowa. He will have plenty of boots on the ground, though, so it is too early to count him out. 

Richardson was at 8 percent in this poll, which is not a statistically significant change from the 10 percent he had in May. Clearly, though, he is stuck around the 10 percent mark in IA and NH and is not continuing to gain momentum. He needs to do something to change the dynamic of the race if he wants to break into the top tier in Iowa. He may be tempted to play it safe and try for a cabinet appointment in the event that Hillary wins, though.

All of the candidates need to try to reduce or eliminate Hillary's leads with women and older voters. Individual supporters and precinct captains need to make those voter contacts in their neighborhoods and make the case for alternatives to Hillary. 

What do the rest of you think about the poll? 

Barack Obama's new tv ad features Retired Air Force General Merrill McPeak. It's a good ad. I couldn't figure out how to embed the video, but here is a link to it:

http://link.brightco…

I do have to wonder, though, how many undecideds are going to swing to Obama after watching this ad. It's not news to anyone that Obama opposed the war in Iraq before it began. If someone already knew this and isn't supporting Obama now, why would hearing McPeak talk about Obama's superior judgment make a difference?

I think Obama needs to make the case for why he is the best candidate to get us out of Iraq, and that's going to be hard for him to do, since his voting record on Iraq in the Senate is the same as Clinton's, and Richardson, Dodd and Biden are all running as more experienced candidates who have the “right” plan for ending the war.

I hate to link to The New Republic, but Michael Crowley does make an interesting point about the ad's use of a black and white photo of Obama in front of the White House–presumably designed to make him look presidential:

http://www.tnr.com/b…

Bill Richardson gave an extremely thoughtful speech yesterday at Georgetown University on the responsible path out of Iraq. Richardson also outlined a new foreign policy for the U.S., discussed our relations with Iran and explained need to restructure our armed forces.  

On Iraq, Richardson stated, “If you haven't seen enough to know that we need to get all the troops out then you aren't watching the same war that I and the rest of America are seeing. I don't think just changing the mission is enough — we need to end the war.”

Everyone should watch Richardson's speech and hear the compelling case he makes for ALL U.S. troops to leave Iraq now.  The video clip follows.

This ad is a work of genius:

The Log Cabin Republicans support Rudy Giuliani, but they wisely say nothing of that in this ad.

They created the illusion of a positive ad (without scary music or unflattering still photos), while using clips of Romney that will absolutely annihilate him among the Republican base. Not only does it highlight his past support for Roe v Wade and keeping abortion safe and legal, in mentions his opposition to the NRA and even includes a clip of Romney saying, “I'm not trying to return to Reagan-Bush.”

Like I said, a work of genius. 

Paul Waldman has a rant in the American Prospect, complaining about Iowa's influence on the nominating process. Here is the link:

http://www.prospect….

And here is the key excerpt:

No small group of Americans deserves this power, but if any does, it sure isn't the citizens of Iowa. 

As you read this, some of the most important and powerful people in America are crawling through the Hawkeye State on their knees, pretending to know more than they do about corn, pretending that the deep fried Twinkie they had back at the state fair was just dee-licious, pretending that ethanol is the key to our energy future, and pretending that every precinct captain and PTA chair they meet is the very heart and soul of our nation, whose opinions the candidate is just dying to hear. And the good people of Iowa? They couldn't give a rat's ass.

If this is a typical election, somewhere between 6 and 10 percent of voting-eligible Iowans will bother to show up to a caucus. Yes, you read that right. Those vaunted Iowa voters are so concerned about the issues, so involved in the political process, so serious about their solemn deliberative responsibilities as guardians of the first-in-the-nation contest, that nine out of ten can't manage to haul their butts down to the junior high on caucus night. One might protest that caucusing is hard — it requires hours of time and a complicated sequence of standing in corners, raising hands, and trading votes (here is an explanation of the ridiculousness). But so what? If ten presidential candidates personally came to your house to beg for your vote, wouldn't you set aside an evening when decision time finally came?

But only one in ten Iowans can be bothered. Not only that, despite all the attention, Iowans know barely more about the candidates than citizens of other states, and don't discuss politics any more than anyone else (unless something has changed since this research was conducted in 2000). Yet around 200,000 of them, possessed of no greater wisdom or insight than the rest of us, will determine who presides over this nation of 300 million for the next four years. The problem isn't that Iowans aren't like the rest of the country (95 percent white, for one). The problem is that despite the extraordinary privilege of having the next president grovel before them, they're just as indifferent and apathetic as any other group of Americans.

I am no fan of the caucus system, but I think Waldman is unduly harsh on Iowans. First, Iowa is fairly representative of the U.S. politically, as a state divided roughly evenly that usually goes for the winner of the presidential election.

Second, turnout for the caucuses may be low in Iowa, but I bet that it would be lower for caucuses in any other state that lacks the tradition we have in Iowa. In some ways it's remarkable that so many people do haul themselves out of their homes for more than an hour on a cold winter weeknight.

But the main thing I will say for Iowans is that they give all the candidates a fair hearing. They do not let a few thousand maxed-out donors decide who is worth their attention.

The truth is that the “money primary” has far more malign influence over national media coverage of presidential elections than Iowa does. The Iowa results will influence media coverage for a week or two, but the money primary determines who gets covered nationally for a year or more.

If the national media had had their way, dark horses never would be able to break through to challenge front-runners. But Iowans were willing to listen to Howard Dean, and he started making a move in the polls here in 2003 before his fundraising got the national media's attention. Iowans were willing to give Kerry and Edwards a chance after the national media had written them off.

This year, Iowans are giving their serious consideration to Biden, Dodd and Richardson as well as the front-runners. Even bloggers who follow politics extremely closely are often quick to dismiss longshot candidates as jokes. I appreciate that Iowans who do plan to caucus will often take the time to learn about and listen to all of the candidates in our field.

So Waldman is incorrect to say that Iowans “don't give a rat's ass” about this process. If anything, Iowa caucus-goers take the process more seriously than the average cynical reporter who covers politics for a living. 

I put up the latest installment of this series at Daily Kos and MyDD. The diaries are geared toward people who are unfamiliar with the caucus system, but I would be interested in comments from Bleeding Heartland readers as well.

If you have read earlier installments of this series, you know that I am no fan of the caucus system. Too many people are excluded from participating because of the requirement that citizens show up in person at exactly 6:30 pm on a cold winter night, staying for an hour or more. People must express their preferences in public, creating an opportunity for intimidation by overbearing neighbors or family members. Determining the winner by state delegates can distort the results and put candidates with pockets of deep support at a disadvantage.

This post is about caucus math and how voters' second choices can affect the way raw voter numbers are translated into delegate counts.

If you make it to the end of this long diary, I hope to have convinced you that 1) caucus math can lead to strange outcomes, and 2) neither you nor I can be sure which candidate will benefit most from the way the math works.

More after the jump. 

[corrected headline after learning from Adam B that Edwards is likely to receive about $10 million in matching funds]

I couldn't disagree more with Simon's post below. 

Marc Ambinder at The Atlantic gives the pros and cons of Edwards' decision to accept matching funds:

http://marcambinder….

The bottom line from my perspective is that Edwards will now have about as much cash on hand going into the home stretch as Hillary and Obama.

And since he has hardly spent anything on paid media in Iowa so far, he will continue to have flexibility in how he spends during the remainder of the campaign. This would be a bigger problem for him if he had already spent millions on tv ads in Iowa, as have several of his rivals.

On Edwards keeping his powder dry in Iowa, see Chris Bowers at Open Left:

http://www.openleft….

Key part of that post:

  Marc Ambinder has some key stats on how much paid media Democratic candidates have currently purchased in Iowa:

 

1. Obama: $2.8M
2. Richardson: $1.7M
3. Clinton: $1.2M
4. Dodd: $739K
5. Biden: $313K
6. Edwrds: $23K

I'll be watching later, after the kids are in bed.

Post your comments on who did well, who missed opportunities, or whatever you like.

My pre-debate prediction is that Richardson and Biden will go at it over who has the right plan to get us out of Iraq.

I will be curious to see if anyone goes after Hillary for voting for the Kyl/Lieberman “sense of the Senate” amendment on Iran today. Biden and Dodd voted against, and Obama was absent but said he would have voted against.

I liked this statement from Dodd:

http://chrisdodd.com…

“I cannot support the Kyl-Lieberman amendment on Iran. To do so could give this President a green light to act recklessly and endanger US national security. We learned in the run up to the Iraq war that seemingly nonbinding language passed by this Senate can have profound consequences. We need the president to use robust diplomacy to address concerns with Iran, not the language in this amendment that the president can point to if he decides to draw this country into another disastrous war of choice.”

He added:

“We shouldn’t repeat our mistakes and enable this President again.”

For the past several Tuesdays, I have been posting diaries in support of John Edwards on the front page of MyDD.

This week I wrote a diary about Edwards' performance at the AARP forum in Davenport last Thursday. I thought it was a strong debate for all who participated, but I wanted to call attention to some particularly strong moments for Edwards.

The diary is long, so I put it after the jump. I welcome your feedback.

Tomorrow night there's another MSNBC debate. I don't have high hopes for the quality of the discussion, given the format and moderation of the previous debates hosted by that network. 

Last night at the Democratic debate in Davenport, Iowa, the most significant exchange to date in the debates occurred.  Judy Woodruff asked the candidates how many U.S. troops would remain in Iraq one year after taking office if elected.

Biden said it depends on how Bush leaves Iraq.  Edwards agreed with Biden, claiming “it’s impossible to say.”  Clinton echoed Biden’s view, vaguely offering “a reasonable and prudent plan” to get our troops out.  Dodd objected to speaking about 2010 and said Congress should not wait that long to act.

Only Richardson provided a direct and unambiguous answer:  

Zero troops! . . .  Without getting our troops out you can not have a political settlement. . . . I would take all of our troops out.  We need to end this war now.

I didn't have a chance to watch the forum.

What did you think?

Iowa Independent's liveblog is here:

http://www.iowaindep…

You can also find links to video from the forum at that site.

Noneed4thneed thought it was a great night for Biden and Edwards:

http://commoniowan.b…

Reaction from MyDD readers is here:

http://www.mydd.com/…

I still think it was insane for Obama to skip this one, given that up to two-thirds of caucus-goers may be over 50.

UPDATE: I finally got around to watching the debate. I thought all five candidates did well. As an Edwards supporter, I was very happy with his performance and his ability to make connections: for instance, between strong unions and pensions, between the solvency of Social Security and the need to stop taxing wealth at a much lower rate than work is taxed.

But I imagine that supporters of the other candidates also found much to like in their performances.

The format was also much better than the previous debates (it helped having only five people on stage). Judy Woodruff did a good job of asking direct questions and following up when warranted. 

More like this debate, please! 

Note: I am cross-posting to Bleeding Heartland my latest installment in MyDD's partisan candidate diary series.

I was planning to write this post about my impressions from Tom Harkin's steak fry on Sunday. However, my camera wasn't working for some reason, and there have already been other good diaries covering that event.

So my thoughts turned to words from a different time and place.

Last Thursday I attended my temple's services for Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish new year. As is my habit when the service starts to drag, I began leafing through the front section of the High Holidays prayer book, which contains quotations, legends and meditations on themes relevant to this time of year. You Jewish readers out there may also enjoy reflecting on those parts of the prayer book if you spend long hours at Yom Kippur services. [note: are there any other Jewish readers of Bleeding Heartland?]

One of the snippets that caught my attention contained a quotation attributed to the Baal Shem Tov, the 18th century rabbi who founded the Hasidic Jewish movement. I don't have a link, but I jotted down the relevant portion:

The first time an event occurs in nature it is a miracle; later it comes to seem natural and is taken for granted.

The quote reminded me of something I had recently read in The Atlantic Monthly. That magazine is 150 years old, and to celebrate that milestone editors have been publishing decades-old excerpts on a particular theme in each issue. In the October 2007 issue, the magazine reprints portions of articles about philanthropy, including a piece written by Alice Hamilton for the May 1930 issue:

I must … join with those who stand for state pensions for the aged poor rather than support given through private charity …
[…]

In thinking of old-age pensions we must take into consideration a great new class of needy people. These are not men who have lived all their lives on the edge of poverty; they are self-respecting artisans, skilled workers, men who have made good wages and held their heads high. At a moment when such a man still possesses all his old skill of eye and hand, and the gains of long experience, he finds himself no longer wanted, of less use in our American social system than his little feather-brained daughter with a year’s training in a business school …

It will be harder and harder for him to find any sort of job, even if he dyes his hair and makes pitiful efforts to hide the senility of fifty years … Personally, I am very loath to accept the verdict that a dependence on the benevolence of the uppermost class toward the lowest class is the only possible American way of solving the problem of the poor, or even that it makes for a healthy state and contentment at the bottom of society …

The American workman may earn high wages … but even if he does, he must live all his working life under the shadow of three Damoclean swords: sickness, loss of his job, and old age, and against these our country, the richest in the world, gives him no protection.

Think about that. In 1930 it was not a given that the elderly should receive any kind of state pension. Our country, “the richest in the world,” offered no protection for those who had worked hard their whole adult lives.

Probably there were plenty of naysayers who thought that efforts to adopt a state pension were a pipe dream which would never get through Congress.

Not long after that, Social Security became a reality, and now there are few programs that seem like a more “natural” obligation of our government than that one.

I am no expert on the history of the labor movement, but the activists who were advocating the right to collective bargaining in the late 19th century must have sometimes felt like it would be a miracle for them to ever succeed. It took decades before the right to join a union seemed “natural” even in the manufacturing sector, and we still haven't done enough to strengthen organized labor.

During this presidential campaign, John Edwards has set out very ambitious policy proposals, like his universal health care plan and his plan to end poverty in 30 years. Some journalists and even some progressives have dismissed these proposals as pandering or a waste of time, since Congress would (supposedly) never adopt them.

I think it is important for the Democratic Party's standard-bearer to set the bar high. Let's not become resigned to the idea that it would take a miracle to get a universal health care plan through Congress. Let's accept that our country, “the richest in the world,” has an obligation to provide universal access to health care, and let's debate the best way to get that done.

Let's talk about who has the best combination of ideas to end poverty or bring the United States closer to true energy independence.

Let's work to make the progressive achievements of the next presidency seem as natural decades from now as Social Security seems to us today.

By putting these goals front and center, John Edwards is not only running a strong campaign, he is inspiring his competitors to be better candidates as well. I hope that all Americans will benefit, no matter who ends up winning the Democratic primaries.

Final note: it's a few days late, but for all you Jewish MyDD readers, here is the Rosh Hashanah message released by John Edwards:

“Rosh Hashanah is an occasion for contemplating the past year and considering our future path.  What have we done to make the world a better place?  What can we do to improve ourselves as individuals?  Elizabeth and I will be asking these questions as we wish all those who observe the high holiday a Happy New Year and pray for a year of peace, prosperity and good health for our brothers and sisters.”

This diary is part of the candidate series for Bill Richardson on MyDD.  I am not part of his campaign.

Congressman, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Secretary of Energy and in his second term as Governor of New Mexico after a landslide victory in November 2006, Governor Bill Richardson is running for President to heal America and restore our place in the world. He possesses the experience, vision and leadership skills to be a great President.

Richardson is goal-oriented, assertive and confident. He has the ability to quickly evaluate a situation but is not rigid in his thinking and will modify policy when necessary. He takes a practical approach to governing, focusing on solutions to problems rather than ideology.

The Los Angeles Times released a new Iowa poll on Tuesday:

Clinton 28

Edwards 23

Obama 19

Richardson 10 

The results have been discussed at MyDD and Open Left:

http://www.mydd.com/…

http://www.openleft….

Jonathan Singer made the key observation at MyDD:

I do just want to add that the “likely” voter screen for the LA Times and Bloomberg is a bit loose. Doing some back of the napkin math, the likely voter model used here would include more than 870,000 Democratic caucus participants — which is a bit more than the 122,000 or so that participated in the last Democratic caucus. While there may be more excitement this time around than there was in 2004, there isn't that much more excitement. So what does that mean? A lot of the folks the Times and Bloomberg are deeming “likely” voters or caucus goers are in fact unlikely to participate come January. Most in fact. As such, while these numbers might be good gauges of the general sentiments of these states, I'm not certain how good of gauges they are of the sentiments of those who are actually going to play a large role in selecting the next Democratic nominee.

The problem with almost every Iowa poll I've seen lately is that the universe of likely voters sampled suggests a ridiculous number of caucus-goers.

If turnout exceeds 150,000 at the Iowa caucuses on the Democratic side, I'll be surprised. If it exceeds 200,000, I'll be shocked.

My sense is that a lot of Hillary supporters and leaners have never caucused before and won't caucus this year either–especially if we have to go the week after New Year's. 

I have been invited to write one front-page post each week at MyDD in support of John Edwards. It appears on Tuesdays as part of their “candidate blogger” series (two Clinton supporters post on Mondays, two Edwards supporters on Tuesdays, two Obama supporters on Wednesdays, and a Dodd, Biden and Richardson supporter on Thursdays).

I keep forgetting to cross-post these at Bleeding Heartland. I've put today's installment after the jump. It's about how Edwards is keeping New Orleans on our national media's radar screen, and why that is important.

Just got this from the Public Campaign Action Fund. If you haven't supported them in the past, please consider doing so. Public Campaign and its action fund do a lot of great work.

Dear [desmoinesdem],

 

Thanks to your fast action, Insight Communications, the cable company that last week refused to air our new ad about Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), has relented: they will air the ad this week.

We beat McConnell and his donors when we forced Insight Communications to back down. Now we need to take this opportunity to claim the right to run this ad on the air. We’re $14,500 short of our goal – if 145 people gave an average gift of $100 we’ll make it. If you can give more, great. Every dollar you contribute affirms the freedom of speech we fought for last week. Please make a donation to help us reach our goal today.

Help us keep this ad on the air. Consider making a donation today!

Insight, whose executives have donated thousands of dollars to McConnell and whose head lobbyist and CEO are both McConnell allies, tried to keep our ad, which talks about McConnell's ties to big money special interests, off the air.  We know censorship — and blatant political favor-trading  — when we see it and we immediately launched our petition effort to get Insight to air the ad.  On Friday evening we got the news: Insight backed down.

Now we need to make sure Kentuckians see this ad. Help us keep it on the air by making a donation today!

While we celebrate this victory for our ad, and for the light it will shed on McConnell's habit of acting on behalf of his campaign patrons instead of his constituents, we also celebrate a larger victory for our freedom of speech.

We have already seen our elections dominated by those with the most money who can buy the biggest megaphone, and as a result we have seen the priorities of our elected officials skew towards the narrow interests of the few and the wealthy.  But when you, and your fellow activists, signed the petition Friday and called for an end to Insight's censorious tactics to further control debate you took an important step in changing those priorities.

The ad will run in Kentucky through the week, as often as our funds will allow.  Thank you for all you've done.

David Donnelly
National Campaigns Director

P.P.S. The ad, and Insight's reaction got quite a bit of news coverage, read up here for more, and check out these YouTube clips of television coverage.

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee had a bumper sticker contest and just selected a winner from about 10,000 entries.

To see what slogan won, and order a free bumper sticker, go here:

http://www.dscc.org/…

Thanks to the Senate 2008 guru for alerting me to this in his excellent weekly roundup, which you can find here:

http://www.mydd.com/…

Or just check the Senate 2008 guru blog here:

http://senate2008gur…

David Donnelly of the Public Campaign Action Fund sent out this very disturbing e-mail today:

Dear [desmoinesdem],

Cable giant Insight Communications pulled our new ad on Mitch McConnell at the 11th hour last night.  Insight's executives have donated $17,000 to McConnell. Now they are helping him even more by engaging in political censorship to keep this ad, which criticizes McConnell for his special interest politics, off the air.

Sign this petition to tell Insight Communications that you won't stand for political censorship.

All the other broadcast networks, including NBC, ABC, and CBS and another cable system are running the ad after reviewing its content for accuracy. Why won't Insight air it? 

And what role did Insight lobbyist Keith Hall or Insight CEO Mike Willner, both McConnell donors and allies and big players in the national cable industry, play in making this decision to censor the ad?

We need answers to these questions and we need your help to hold cable giant Insight accountable for political censorship, which is a blatant move to help out their favorite big money politician, Mitch McConnell. Their decision to pull the ad at the last minute, and give us no notice or opportunity to respond to their concerns, is highly irregular and reeks of a potent witch's brew of big money donors, lobbyists with connections, unaccountable big media, and a powerful Senator.

Insight Communications is censoring political speech — sign this petition and tell them to take their big money muzzles off our airwaves.

High-powered lobbyists and moneyed special interests already dominate campaigns and political debate in this country — when they try and censor ads that draw attention to this disparity they must be held to account. If big money politicians and big media win, we all lose. Only in the narrowest sense is this is a fight about whether our ad runs. At its core, it's a fight about freedom of speech.

Sign the petition today and get this ad back on the air.

Thanks for your work,
David Donnelly
National Campaigns Director

P.S. Now more than ever we need to keep this ad running in Kentucky.  Please donate today to keep it on the air.

Here is David's diary at Daily Kos on the same subject:

http://www.dailykos….

If you haven't joined Public Campaign yet, you should:

http://www.publicamp…

I forgot to set the VCR. From the looks of this thread at MyDD, I didn't miss much:

http://www.mydd.com/…

interesting tidbit here from Todd Beeton, who was watching the post-debate tv coverage:

The participants in Frank Luntz's post-debate focus group of 29 Republicans were unanimous in their disappointment in the candidates. A solid majority was pleasantly surprised by McCain and was most disappointed in Rudy Giuliani. They also called Romney a waffler.

While bloggers were busy overreacting to Bill Richardson's jokes, the governor stated some obvious and important truths about our transportation policy during a campaign stop in Creston on Tuesday.

He makes a lot of good points in the write-up in today's Des Moines Register, so I encourage you to click through and read the whole thing:

The United States’ transportation system is “fixated on highways” and should include more emphasis on energy-efficient modes of travel with planning to ensure preservation of open spaces, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson said here today.

Richardson told about 80 people at Creston’s historic railroad depot that he’s been struck by the massive traffic jams and congestion he’s encountered while visiting as many as three states per day while seeking the Democratic presidential nomination.

The problem, he said, has been caused by poor planning by policy makers who have suffered from an inability to look forward to provide alternatives to driving automobiles.

“What I am seeing right now is all across the country … individuals in cities asking for a more active federal role in not just funding bills to create new highways, but also light rail transportation, commuter rail, and open spaces,” said Richardson, whose campaign talk was periodically interrupted by the rumble of freight trains and a Chicago-bound Amtrak passenger train that rolled past the restored depot.

It's long past time for us to shift some of our transportation dollars away from new road construction.

For more information about transit-oriented development, click here or  click here.

For great analysis of high-speed rail's potential in the U.S. and other aspects of transportation policy, check out some of the diaries posted by BruceMcF at Daily Kos.

I only have time for a quick-hit–head over to Open Left for Chris Bowers' analysis of the state of the race, including new polls from ARG and Time magazine:

http://www.openleft….

Chris has an easy-to-read chart. ARG, which has shown Clinton ahead in Iowa all year, has Clinton 28, Obama 23, Edwards 20, Richardson 13.

Time has Edwards 29, Clinton 24, Obama 22, Richardson 11. 

ARG seems to be polling a broader sample of Iowans, and I think they are polling too many people who have no chance in hell of showing up on caucus night.

That said, anyone would have to agree that it is very tight in Iowa now. If the polls stay like this up until January, no one will have any idea who is going to win. Too much depends on how candidates' support is spread around the state and who leads among second choices.

I put this up recently at MyDD and Daily Kos, but for some reason forgot to cross-post here.

I am writing one front-page post at MyDD every Tuesday in support of John Edwards as part of their “unofficial candidate blogger” series (two Clinton supporters post on Mondays, two Edwards supporters post on Tuesdays, two Obama supporters post on Wednesdays, and a Biden, Dodd and Richardson supporter each post on Thursdays).

This was my first piece in that series.  It's a bit of personal narrative about how I came to be supporting Edwards, and it includes links to a lot of other good diaries about the candidate and his policies.

It's long, so I put it after the jump. I welcome your feedback, and I encourage you to put up diaries telling us why you are supporting your favorite in the race, if you have already decided. 

Back in June, I urged Barack Obama to fire the scheduler who put him at a west-coast fundraiser instead of at the Iowa Democratic Party's Hall of Fame dinner in Cedar Rapids. It seemed crazy to me for Obama to pass up a chance to address 1,000 Democratic activists in Iowa, especially since he wasn't hurting in the fundraising department. 

I've long questioned the wisdom of David Axelrod's strategy to make the Obama campaign about Obama's inspiring personal story and his quest for consensus and post-partisanship.

Now I read in the Des Moines Register on Friday that Barack Obama will skip the September 20 American Association for Retired Persons forum in Davenport.

John Edwards, Hillary Clinton and Bill Richardson will be there. But Obama will miss the chance to address more than 2,000 Iowa seniors, as well as the national public television audience who will watch the event.

Last week the Obama campaign announced plans to skip many of the remaining forums held by interest groups, and his national campaign manager explained the decision to the Register:

The number of events threatened to take Obama off his own game plan, his national campaign manager David Plouffe said.

“Otherwise, our schedule would be dictated by dozens and dozens of forums and debates, and we think the most important part of this process is individual interaction with voters,” Plouffe said. “We benefit greatly when we're out there meeting with voters at our own events.”

A lot of pundits and bloggers applauded Obama's decision, saying there are too many debates and forums. I see their point, but on the other hand, interest group forums raise questions that might not come up often on the campaign trail. I like the idea of the candidates being forced to address these issues.

Plus, I think it's risky to turn down an invitation when your rivals will all be there. 

But even if I agreed with Obama's general strategy to attend fewer of these forums, the last one I'd skip is the AARP forum in Iowa.

Think about it: Obama does well with the under-30 crowd, but many (most?) Iowa precincts have a very small proportion of voters under 30. The majority of caucus-goers are likely to be over 50. The Register notes:

That group also has carried disproportionate clout in recent caucuses, according to Iowa Democratic Party statistics.

In 2004, 64 percent of the people who participated in the Democratic presidential caucuses were 50 or older. In 2000, the figure was 63 percent.

If Obama is going to do well in Iowa, he'll have to improve his numbers with the over-50 set.

Iowa State University political science professor Dianne Bystrom said she would have thought Obama would have made an exception for the AARP forum.

“He may not think that's his political base,” said Bystrom, whose expertise includes debate strategy. “But it's the older voters that go to the caucuses, and I think he's really passing up an opportunity to speak to those voters.”

Obama has a great Iowa staff led by John Norris, who managed John Kerry's campaign here in 2003 and 2004 Paul Tewes. But his national campaign handlers need to have their heads examined.

You may wonder why I care, since I am supporting Edwards for president. But I don't want Obama to do poorly in Iowa. I want him to finish ahead of Clinton.

To do that, he'll need to do better with older voters.  I hope he'll turn up in Davenport on September 20 after all.

Joe Biden's campaign has posted the candidate's new tv ad in Iowa, along with Biden's answers from this morning's debate, over at Daily Kos:

http://www.dailykos….

Click over and watch the ad, “Cathedral,” if you haven't seen it yet. I think it will get people talking and looking up that website.

Biden is positioning himself as the candidate with the solution to the Iraq problem. I don't happen to favor his partition proposal, but I think it's good that he is putting the plan out there. Let's debate who has the best plan for getting us out of Iraq quickly and safely.

I taped the debate and will watch later.

If you were watching this morning, what did you think?

Matt Browner-Hamlin has posted the Dodd campaign's debate clock in the diaries section. As usual, Obama gets way more time than anyone else. This has been true in every debate. What's with these moderators?

UPDATE: Nate Willems' take is here:

http://www.mydd.com/…

Iowa Independent has several commentaries on the debate (click the link on the blogroll to the right).

Over at Century of the Common Iowan, Noneed4thneed put up a video clip of David Brooks talking about how Republicans privately can't stand Bush, think he's incompetent, blame him for destroying the party and so on.

I don't doubt that this is true. They were happy to puff up Bush and smear his detractors when his approval ratings were high, but now that he's been below 40 percent for almost two years, he is a little embarrassing. Even the White House has given up on salvaging Bush's presidency (at least that's how I interpret Karl Rove's departure to work on other GOP projects).

So far Republican presidential candidates have mainly criticized the Bush administration on immigration policy. I was expecting some second-tier candidate other than Ron Paul to start calling for bringing our troops home from Iraq (using a soft-racist line like, “We've done all we can for those people”), but that hasn't materialized.

Newt Gingrich, who isn't running yet and probably won't run unless Fred Thompson tanks, is the only Republican besides Paul who has really harsh words for the Bush administration.

Mike Huckabee was on The Colbert Report tonight, and when Stephen asked him his signature question (“George W. Bush: great president, or the greatest president?”), Huckabee said Bush will rank right up there with McKinley and Harding, adding that Bush's presidency “will be a historic moment in time.”

Subtle, and only delivered to Colbert's liberal audience for now.

Is this the start of a new Huckabee strategy to depict Bush as one of our country's more inept presidents, presiding over rampant corruption and inequality?

If so, could this possibly be a winning strategy on the GOP side? Or would it put Huckabee out of the running for VP as well as the top of the ticket?

Or am I reading too much into all of this?

Take the poll and comment, if you like. 

I've long agreed with Kos that Mike Huckabee is the guy in the Republican field I'd least like to see us face in the general. Probably thanks to his experience as a pastor, he connects well with people both in person and on television. He doesn't have the baggage of the Republicans in Congress (voting in lockstep with Bush on Iraq and everything else). He has that inspiring personal story about overcoming obesity, a non-partisan issue that is salient for millions of Americans. He has executive experience. Particularly against Hillary, I think Huckabee spells trouble for us.

That said, I am not sure whether Huckabee's surprisingly strong showing in the Iowa GOP straw poll is good or bad for Democrats.

As you probably know, Huckabee finished second with 2,587 votes, or about 18 percent of the total cast in Ames. I think most of us would agree with Don at Cyclone Conservatives, who called Huckabee the big winner of the day.

His campaign spent about $150,000 on the event, including about 1,850 tickets they purchased for supporters. The group Americans for Fair Taxation claimed credit for Huckabee's strong showing; they spent about as much as the Huckabee campaign on the straw poll and bused about 1,500 people to the event (including about 500 who could vote).

Asked by Iowa Independent what helped Huckabee in Ames, his campaign manager Chip Saltsman said, “We talked a lot about the fair tax.”

In the comments section below that Iowa Independent story, Polk County Republican Party chairman Ted Sporer agreed:

Huckabee's committment to the Fair Tax is one of the reasons he is surging in our primaries because it is a specific tangible policy that addresses a specific policy itch in the Republican shoe, a dislike of hte convoluted tax code.

This is a mainstream R issue and Huckabee has found a simple and attractive way to address the issue and to stand for something tangible. 

Words matter.

Huckabee only edged out Sam Brownback (who, like Mitt Romney opposes the fair tax proposal) by about 400 votes. Take away those Iowans bused in by Americans for Fair Taxation and you'd have a very different story coming out of Ames.

What interests me most about Huckabee's showing is that he did it despite attack ads that the Club for Growth has been running against him on Iowa television stations. Presumably, they were trying to take him out of the running before the straw poll, and they clearly failed miserably.

Political insiders and junkies have known for a long time that the Club for Growth hates Huckabee, but their very public spanking of him (comparing his record as a tax-raising governor to Bill Clinton) seems to have prompted Huckabee to ratchet up his rhetoric against the business wing of the GOP.

Check out this clip from Hardball last week (hat tip to noneed4thneed).

I've watched it several times, and I still can't believe that a Republican went on tv accusing others of letting the GOP become “a wholly-owned subsidiary of Wall Street and the corporations” that have let workers make money for their companies and then end up in the poorhouse. 

Huckabee says it's unacceptable for CEOs to make 500 times the salary of their workers and get huge bonuses while they drive their companies into bankruptcy. He talks about coming from a working class family and how he remembers his dad struggling.

I mean, does he sound like he's channeling John Edwards, or what? No wonder the Club for Growth hates this guy.

Now, I repeat that I would not want to face Huckabee in the general. He would excite the GOP religious base and not come across as too objectionable to independents. He is a social conservative, but he comes across as less scary than, say, Brownback.

But when I think about Huckabee making the top tier, getting more mainstream media coverage while portraying the GOP as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Wall Street and big business, I smile.

Having a Republican reinforce this stereotype will reach many voters who would tune out a Democrat making similar allegations.

You know how the liberal blogosphere goes nuts whenever a prominent Democrat lends support to a right-wing frame about Democrats? Like, when someone like Barack Obama says that all too often Democrats have seemed hostile to mentioning religion in public?

Well, think how mad the other Republicans will be if Huckabee keeps carrying the “GOP in bed with big business” frame to the mass public. What has he got to lose? The Club for Growth is attacking him anyway. There are a decent number of working class or struggling middle class Republicans who will probably like his populist message. 

I've always felt that part of the Republicans' success is that they don't campaign against each other by repeating negative stereotypes about the party. You don't hear them saying, “I'm not like all those other Republicans who just carry water for big business and screw the little guy.”

Huckabee just may be about to prove me wrong.

And if the Club for Growth and other candidates do crush his candidacy, it will only demonstrate the fact that business interests really do get their way with today's GOP.

The big risk for Democrats, of course, is that if Huckabee catches fire and manages to win the nomination, we'll have a much harder time making an “economic fairness” case against him.  

What do the rest of you think? 

Take a minute to click over to Iowa Independent, where T.M. Lindsey has live-blogged the Ron Paul rally in Cedar Rapids. It's a good read.

I've been saying for months that Ron Paul is not going to get major traction among GOP primary voters. It's not that Republicans aren't sick of the war–they are. But the diehard Republicans who think “we've done all we can for those people,” and it's time to bring the troops home, will never admit Bush made a mistake in taking us into Iraq. And that is why Paul will never be able to reach them.

Also, I think true libertarians are scarce in the GOP these days. But maybe I am wrong. He certainly seems to have a buzz surrounding his campaign, and he is the most coherent of the bunch in the televised debates.

Lest any of you think this is proof that Paul is a “liberal” or would be more at home in the Democratic Party, I refer you to this good set of diaries by “phenry” over at Daily Kos:

http://www.dailykos….“>Ron Paul, In His Own Words.

http://www.dailykos….“>Ron Paul: The Radical Right's Man in Washington.

http://www.dailykos….“>Ron Paul: Dude is Wack.

http://www.dailykos….“>Ron Paul Hates You.

So what do you all think about Ron Paul and his potential in Iowa?

Just heard about this from the Richardson campaign:

Governor Bill Richardson will announce his, new national healthcare plan in a speech at the Iowa Professional Firefighters-Local 15 Hall in Council Bluffs, Iowa tomorrow [Tuesday] at 1:30 PM.

WHEN: 1:30 PM (Central Time)
WHAT: Speech on Universal Healthcare Plan
WHERE: Iowa Professional Firefighters-Local 15, 1827 South 8th St, Council Bluffs, IA

I look forward to hearing more details about Richardson's health care plan and how he would pay for it, in light of his support for a balanced budget constitutional amendment and his promises not to raise taxes. 

Who had the bright idea of scheduling a televised debate at 8 am on a Sunday?

I didn't even remember to set the VCR. Maybe they'll broadcast it again tonight.

Anyone watch the GOP crowd today? What did you think?