THIS PRIMARY IS ABOUT OCTOBER 2002 AND THE WAR VOTE BY EDWARDS AND CLINTON

Why Obama? This is the main reason I am voting for Barack: because he had the good sense to be against the War in Iraq in 2002, calling it a “Dumb War”. Edwards meanwhile co-sponsored the Authorization of Force Resolution and said on the floor: “We know Saddam has WMD”.

Here is the devastating video of Edwards' floor speech to send us to war on a lie:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…

What was Obama's speech on Iraq a month later? He called it a dumb war. Here's a video interview. Who had better judgement? Who was more for peace and diplomacy? Who is the true diplomacy-first leader? Barack Obama:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…

Here is Hillary, trusting BUSH all the way:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…

Think it's pretty clear who is a true leader instead of a calculating politician.

And Clinton? She is even worse than Edwards, not reading the NIE again, not even the summary! And then she even did something Joe LIEberman did not do, definitively link al Quada and Saddam:

HILLARY'S WAR According to Senate aides, because Clinton was not yet on the Armed Services Committee, she did not have anyone working for her with the security clearances needed to read the entire N.I.E. and the other highly classified reports that pertained to Iraq. She could have done the reading herself. Senators were able to access the N.I.E. at two secure locations in the Capitol complex. Nonetheless, only six senators personally read the report, according to a 2005 television interview with Senator Jay Rockefeller, Democrat of West Virginia and then the vice chairman of the intelligence panel. Earlier this year, on the presidential campaign trail in New Hampshire, Clinton was confronted by a woman who had traveled from New York to ask her if she had read the intelligence report. According to Eloise Harper of ABC News, Clinton responded that she had been briefed on it.

''Did you read it?'' the woman screamed. Clinton replied that she had been briefed, though she did not say by whom. The question of whether Clinton took the time to read the N.I.E. report is critically important. Indeed, one of Clinton's Democratic colleagues, Bob Graham, the Florida senator who was then the chairman of the intelligence committee, said he voted against the resolution on the war, in part, because he had read the complete N.I.E. report. Graham said he found that it did not persuade him that Iraq possessed W.M.D. As a result, he listened to Bush's claims more skeptically. ''I was able to apply caveat emptor,'' Graham, who has since left the Senate, observed in 2005. He added regretfully, ''Most of my colleagues could not.''

On Tuesday, Oct. 8, 2002, Senate Democrats, including Clinton, held a caucus over lunch on the second floor of the Capitol. There, Graham says he ''forcefully'' urged his colleagues to read the complete 90-page N.I.E. before casting such a monumental vote. In her own remarks on the Senate floor on Oct. 10, 2002, Clinton noted the existence of ''differing opinions within this body.'' Then she went on to offer a lengthy catalog of Saddam Hussein's crimes. She cited unnamed ''intelligence reports'' showing that between 1998 and 2002 ''Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile-delivery capability and his nuclear program.'' Both the public and secret intelligence estimates on Iraq contained such analysis, but the complete N.I.E. report also included other views. A dissent by the State Department's intelligence arm concluded — correctly, as it turned out — that Iraq was not rebuilding its nuclear program.

Clinton continued, accusing Iraq's leader of giving ''aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members.'' This statement fit squarely within the ominous warning she issued the day after Sept. 11.

Clinton's linking of Iraq's leader and Al Qaeda, however, was unsupported by the conclusions of the N.I.E. and other secret intelligence reports that were available to senators before the vote. Indeed, the one document that supported Clinton's statement, a public letter from the C.I.A. to Senator Graham, mentioned ''growing indications of a relationship'' between Al Qaeda and Iraq but acknowledged that those indications were based on ''sources of varying reliability.'' In fact, the classified reports available to all senators at the time found that Iraq was not allied with Al Qaeda, and that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden harbored feelings of deep mistrust and enmity for each other.

…

Nevertheless, on the sensitive issue of collaboration between Al Qaeda and Iraq, Senator Clinton found herself adopting the same argument that was being aggressively pushed by the administration. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and other administration officials had repeated their claim frequently, and by early October 2002, two out of three Americans believed that Saddam Hussein was connected to the Sept. 11 attacks. By contrast, most of the other Senate Democrats, even those who voted for the war authorization, did not make the Qaeda connection in their remarks on the Senate floor. One Democratic senator who voted for the war resolution and praised President Bush for his course of ''moderation and deliberation,'' Joe Biden of Delaware, actively assailed the reports of Al Qaeda in Iraq, calling them ''much exaggerated.'' Senator Dianne Feinstein of California described any link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda as ''tenuous.'' The Democratic senator who came closest to echoing Clinton's remarks about Hussein's supposed assistance to Al Qaeda was Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut. Yet even Lieberman noted that ''the relationship between Al Qaeda and Saddam's regime is a subject of intense debate within the intelligence community.''

For most of those who had served in the Clinton administration, the supposed link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda had come to seem baseless. ''We all knew it was ,'' said Kenneth Pollack, who was a national-security official under President Clinton and a leading proponent of overthrowing Saddam Hussein. Pollack says he discussed Iraq with Clinton before her vote in 2002, but he won't disclose his advice.

The Saddam-Al Qaeda link, so aggressively pushed by the Bush administration, was later debunked as false. So how could Clinton, named in 2006 by The Washingtonian magazine as the ''brainiest'' senator, have gotten such a critical point wrong? Referring to the larger question of her support for the authorization, Clinton said in February of this year, ''My vote was a sincere vote based on the facts and assurances that I had at the time.''

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/f…

This is the most important difference in this primary: the Iraq War Vote.

At 4:00PM on Saturday, I got a call from a “polling firm”. It began innocously emough by asking which Dem I planned to caucus for, and I said Dodd, but then the real purpose became clear. They asked me if any of the following information would change my opinion about these three “Democrat” candidates:

Clinton – she's a flip-flopper, who used to opposed ethanol, but now she supports it.

Obama – voted present seven times on reproductive rights bills in the Illinois State Senate.

Edwards – he's a liberal trial lawyer who wants to bring troops home from Iraq.

I replied that no, their opinions didn't bother me at all. So, has anyone else gotten these calls? I live in Johnson county, and I wonder if they're going statewide.

Have you seen the headlines?

The squabble to be first in deciding the nation’s fate is intensifying. Early states are cleverly inching their primaries in a race to secure voting influence for their citizens. By the end of February, we’ll know who the presidential finalists are before more than half the nation gets a chance to vote, let alone meet the candidates. Sound Fair?

Check out the primary schedule.

The heavily frontloaded primary schedule does all of America a disservice. Leaving the power to decide who the next president of the America can be to a handful of people is just not right. The demographic make up of all the early primary state, even combined, does not accurately represent the American population. For instance, isn’t New Hampshire the third wealthiest state in the nation?

With less than a month left, there seems like there’s no hope. The Washington Post reports that the American people are being tempted by pessimism, and are losing faith in our political system. But, not to fear.

Register to host a caucus at www.nationalcaucus.com and get involved.

It seems like there’s no hope but to accept the circumstances. However, I came across this website, the National Presidential Caucus, that looks to give voters a fair chance to voice their opinions before the primaries kick off. It’s not a national primary or anything like that, don’t let the name mislead you.

Here’s how it works:

1) Post your caucus online

2) Meet offline with some friends, neighbors, whomever to discuss candidates and issues

3) Post your results from your discussions online

It’s as simple as that. It’s really just an effort to encourage and empower civic engagement and voter opinions. So why not…

How can we claim to go across seas to build a democracy, when our own political system at home is suffering? Get involved. sign up to host a caucus in your neighborhood today.

If the media and early states get their way, the presidential nomination finalists will be decided by the end of February before more than half the nation gets a chance to voice their opinions. Sound fair?

The stakes are high in the next election and we can’t sit idly. Join the National Presidential Caucus (NPC) effort to confront the heavily compressed primary schedule we’re facing today. NPC is hosting a National Caucus Day on Dec. 7^th and we’d love if you’d join us in organizing caucuses in your area!

www.nationalcaucus.com

To encourage voters to form opinions before the early primary states and the media determine who the leading candidates will be, NPC is asking people like you to host caucuses in their communities. It’s a great way to get your candidate and issue out there.
Here’s how it works:
-Post a caucus on the website
-Meet offline on December 7^th to talk about issues and candidates that matter TO YOU
-Post your results on our website with all the other caucuses from across the nation

  Hosting a caucus is as simple as getting some friends, family, or whomever you want together. It's really easy to do!

What if every state's caucus and primary were weighted equally? I don't know about you, but I'd call that democracy. 

Senator Edwards was thirty minutes late when he arrived at the packed room in downtown Storm Lake, so he got right to work.  Edwards introduced his two young children, then– to their delight– released them for a quick trip down to the lakeshore.  Such cute kids.  It was the highlight of the event.

Edwards tried.  He cut his stump speech . . .

I’ll elaborate on this later today (hopefully).  But John Edwards’ energy and environmental policy rolled out in his speech in Nevada yesterday represents the  most serious, and workable approach of any candidate in the race.  Policy paper here.

Gotta run to work now but I’ll try and get into this in more detail anon.

Still waiting for someone, anyone to utter the two magic words…

“drive less.”

Strategic Vision, a Republican polling firm, has released their first polling on the Iowa Caucuses.  Here are the results:

John Edwards 25%

Barack Obama 17%

Tom Vilsack 16%

Hillary Clinton 15%

Joe Biden 4%

John Kerry 3%

Wesley Clark 2%

Bill Richardson 1%

Chris Dodd 1%

Dennis Kucinich 1%

Undecided 15%

It is remarkably similar to the Zogby poll just released a few days ago, which you can find here.

What is your perspective on the race in Iowa from the ground?  And don’t forget to take the caucus poll on the right.