Time's annual "Person of the Year" issue is coming out soon, and I thought I'd offer my thoughts on who it could be. They have a nine-person pool up for "your vote", but I thought I'd go beyond that.  And I do think it'll be an actual person this time. Here are my odds for who will be named Time's "Person of the Year":

1-1 Al Gore: It's been a great year for Al. Between Live Earth, the Oscar, and the Nobel, he's been everywhere. Not to mention that giving him the honor on would be a snub to President Bush…(who's been awarded twice). Gore would seem the obvious choice.

3-1 Barack Obama Considering his meteoric rise, he's the big story out of American politics this year. His very candidacy has forced America to ask some very profound questions about ourselves as a country and a people. Could he be the new face of America? Yet he still trails in the polls, and Time may want to wait and see what he does in the future.

5-1 Hillary Clinton Like it or not, she's set the tone of the 2008 Election so far. She's the leader of the pack, for now and is a global figure. Yet Time may want to wait. Just like Obama though, if she wins the presidency she'll get the award for sure. And if she does turn out to be the Howard Dean of 2008…they'd look pretty foolish.

10-1 Nicolas Sarkozy The figurehead of Europe's swing to the right, he singlehandedly rebuilt the trans-Atlantic alliance. Time might like to select a world leader and Sarkozy certainly stands out in that area. However, has he had enough global impact to make the cut?

15-1 Steve Jobs As the Time page says, the iPhone was a hit, the iPod has changed the way we live, and Apple stock is up 100% for the year. The Mac Attack is back, but with business in general in a slump, will Time want to celebrate a captain of industry?

25-1 Mahmoud Ahmadinejad This dastardly dictator has certainly made waves in the world this year, and it's worth remembering that Stalin and Hitler both made the cut. But scowling Iranians don't sell magazines. (Or as Stephen Colbert would say Mahmoud Ahmagonnagetajob.

100-1 J.K. Rowling Seriously. Wars across the world, political battles at home, the Al Gore behemoth, and she gets the nod?! Still, Time has made some off the wall choices before. 

Who do you think it will be? Is there some figure I've overlooked? Let's hear your thoughts!

I think Barack Obama made a mistake earlier this year by proposing a health care plan that was less than universal. First Edwards and later Clinton outflanked him on that issue with proposals that would cover every American.

So speaking to voters in Council Bluffs, Obama made the case against mandatory health care insurance:

Health care insurance should not become a government mandate, Barack Obama said here today, referencing plans posed by John Edwards and Hillary Clinton.

Obama said such mandates for health care coverage is a wrong step. He told a crowd of about 350 people at Thomas Jefferson High School that his plan would lower costs on average by about $2,500 per family, making health care affordable for all without placing demands.

He compared Clinton and Edwards’ proposed mandates to car insurance, noting that some states with required auto insurance still have a pocket of 15 or more percent that still go without coverage even though it’s illegal.

“Their essential argument is the only way to get everybody covered is if the government forces you to buy health insurance. If you don’t buy it, then you’ll be penalized in some way,” Obama said. “What I have said repeatedly is that the reason people don’t have health insurance isn’t because they don’t want it, it’s because they can’t afford it.”

Of course many of the uninsured cannot afford coverage now, but many are currently uninsurable, which would change with better regulation of insurance companies and more options for the public (such as letting people buy into a public plan).

Also, the Edwards and Clinton plans include many things that would lower premium costs, making it easier for more people to afford coverage.

The experts on health care policy say you need mandates to get everyone covered. But even leaving that aside, Obama ignores the fact that the president has to set the bar very high in terms of what he asks Congress to pass.

Maybe a comprehensive universal health care plan would not pass during the first year of the next administration. But you don't take the compromise that you might need to settle for and make that your starting offer to Congress.

I have written about this before. My biggest concern about Obama as potential president is that in his desire to appear post-partisan and conciliatory, he would give half the game away before negotiations with the other side begin.

If Obama won't even submit a universal plan to Congress, then what he would get out of Congress would be even less than what he is advocating.

Now, the conservative New Hampshire Union Leader newspaper has praised Obama's health care plan as “a smaller pill to swallow” (hat tip to MyDD user “silver spring,” a Clinton supporter). Of course, conservatives would prefer not to do anything to expand health care coverage. If I'm running for president in the Democratic primary, I don't think I want Republicans praising my health care plan because it does less than other Democrats' plans.

UPDATE: Ezra Klein, one of the blogosphere's leading wonks on health care policy, weighs in on “Obama's excuse”.

I have to hand it to Hillary Clinton's campaign. This is a good video:

Exercising is hard. Dancing is hard. Singing is hard. Caucusing is easy.

It's important to let people know that they can show up at the precinct caucus. Just last night I ran into two people I know who are fairly politically informed. I asked them if they caucused in 2004. They didn't because they are registered independents, and they never got around to changing their registration. I told them they could change their registration right there at the caucus–they had no idea. If they had known, they might have come out in January 2004.

With the caucus set for January 3, I am not expecting a big turnout, but I give all the campaigns credit for trying to get new caucus-goers involved. That will strengthen the Iowa Democratic Party.

UPDATE: At Iowa Independent, John Deeth noticed something I missed in the video:

http://www.iowaindependent.com…

1:23 in: “Bring a friend, a family member or a neighbor.”  Sure, the more the merrier — as long as they live in your precinct.  Your across-the-street neighbor might caucus somewhere else, and your friend who lives across town almost certainly will.

He is right–Clinton’s campaign should not be encouraging people to possibly bring friends and family to the wrong precinct location.

This article from the New York Times has made a splash in the liberal blogosphere:

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York has nearly doubled the size of her staff in Iowa and has substantially increased her advertising here as her campaign reinforces its effort to prevent Democrats from coalescing around a single alternative to her candidacy.

In the four weeks between Thanksgiving and Christmas, Mrs. Clinton, whose campaign has been on the defensive lately because of her own missteps and increasingly aggressive attacks from her rivals, is moving to double or triple the amount of time she has spent here in recent months. Seldom will a day go by, aides said, when either she or former President Bill Clinton will not be on some patch of Iowa soil trying to solidify her support and win over an unusually high number of uncommitted voters.

“We’re going to begin using all the assets we have,” said Tom Vilsack, a former governor of Iowa who serves as co-chairman of the Clinton campaign. “We haven’t been bashful about asking for the moon here.”

If I were running Hillary's campaign, I would also use Bill as much as possible. His favorables have been higher than Hillary's for the last 15 years, and he generates a lot of excitement and free media coverage everywhere he goes.

That said, to my mind this is the key passage in the article:

More than 60 percent of those who have identified themselves as Clinton supporters, senior strategists say, have never participated in the Iowa caucuses. It is a far higher share than the campaign had been anticipating, which suggests that many of the reliable rank-and-file Democrats have chosen another candidate. So the Clinton campaign is working to expand its universe of supporters to women who have never participated.

The New York Times article goes on to say that Hillary now has 34 field offices in Iowa,

arriving in many cities more than two months behind the local operatives for Mr. Obama or Mr. Edwards. Last week, the Clinton campaign’s national headquarters sent a top communications operative to Iowa and hired eight deputies charged solely with drumming up media coverage in smaller cities across the state.

The big question is, will Clinton's staff be able to get those first-time caucus-goers to show up on January 3?

I know Hillary has been doing lots of robocalls. I've received several myself. Presumably those are aimed at all Iowa Democrats, not just the universe of past caucus-goers. Hillary is talking about whatever issue, and then at the end she says, press 1 if you are ready to support me, press 2 if you want more information about my campaign.

It would take very little effort for a non-regular voter to listen to this call and press 1. I imagine that is how they are compiling a large list of supporters who have never caucused before.

If she can turn those people out, she deserves to win, and the Iowa Democratic Party will benefit from having more people engaged in the process.

A diary on the New York Times article generated a heated discussion last night on Daily Kos.

Jerome Armstrong posted an interesting commentary on the article at MyDD. He inferred that

The Clinton campaign must have polled and segmented and projected that, with the given caucus universe, they just can't win in Iowa– recall their internal memo earlier this spring that considered ditching the state. So instead, the focus moves to the technique of expanding the caucus universe.

This post by Nate Willems seems to support this analysis as well, especially his observation that

In making calls through a list of rural Democrats who are consistent primary voters, but who lack a history of attending a caucus, my anecdotal notes show that Clinton is significantly stronger than any other candidate.  Accordingly, it does seem that she would benefit from a larger turnout.  

Amongst rural Democrats with a record of attending their caucus, my notes show a very competitive race between Edwards and Clinton with Obama distinctly behind.

What do you think? Is the Clinton campaign truly concerned that recent Iowa polls showing her in the lead include too many people who are unlikely to caucus? Or are they mainly trying to lower expectations for their candidate in Iowa?

The Good News:

There's Finally a Senate Bill in Committee, that hopes to do something about Global Warming!  The bill America's Climate Security Act of 2007, sponsors Senators Joe Lieberman and John Warner.

The bill would impose emission limits on electric utility, transportation, and manufacturing industries.

Between 2005 and 2012: The bill caps emissions at 5200 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent, the estimated levels during 2005

The Bad News:

The Lieberman Bill does NOT go FAR enough, FAST enough, and is a “fig leaf” offering to Industry, which seeks to replace a competing Carbon Cap Bill that does what's scientifically needed …

The original Carbon Cap bill Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act of 2007, sponsors by Senators Bernie Sanders and Barbara Boxer.

Is this just more “Business as Usual” in Congress?
…

I've got to agree with David Sirota here: Hillary Clinton Thinks Iowans Are Stupid.

Four days after voting for a trade agreement with Peru, Hillary tells a United Auto Workers conference that “she'll call a 'time out' on trade agreements if she wins the White House to see if the deals are draining jobs from the U.S.”

She also campaigned today in Waterloo, a city that has lost a lot of good manufacturing jobs.

Will people fall for this? 

Hillary Clinton had a chance to do one of two things on the Peru Free Trade Agreement. She could announce her opposition to the proposal, or she could do what Wall Street demanded.

CLINTON ON TRADE: I’M AS AWFUL AS OBAMA…

Clinton went with Wall Street. On the same day that a majority of House Democrats voted against the Peru FTA, the senator from New York endorsed the current economic-policy priority of the Bush administration.

In so doing, Clinton confirmed that the only thing more important to her than securing her lead in the race for the Democratic nod is keeping the likely financiers of her fall campaign happy, and Clinton joined Illinois Senator Obama in supporting the trade deal.

Edwards opposes! 
 

Bill Richardson is goal-oriented, assertive and confident.  He has served as a Congressman, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Secretary of Energy and is in his second term as Governor of New Mexico after a landslide re-election victory in November 2006.  

Here are five of many reasons why I believe Richardson possesses the experience, vision and leadership skills to be a great President:

1.  A Bright Vision for America
2.  An Ironclad Promise to Promptly End the U.S. Occupation of Iraq
3.  A Bold Agenda To Address The Pressing Challenges Facing Our Nation and Planet
4.  The White House and A Landslide Victory for Democrats Nationwide in 2008
5.  Comprehensive Immigration Reform In Accordance With the Values Upon Which Our Country Was Founded

In a few moments, I will sign three agreements that will complete our negotiations with Mexico and Canada to create a North American Free Trade Agreement. In the coming months, I will submit this pact to Congress for approval. It will be a hard fight, and I expect to be there with all of you every step of the way. We will make our case as hard and as well as we can. And though the fight will be difficult, I deeply believe we will win. And I’d like to tell you why: first of all, because NAFTA means jobs American jobs, and good-paying American jobs. If I didn’t believe that, I wouldn’t support this agreement.

– Former President Bill Clinton speech on NAFTA, Sept. 13, 1993

Well, that didn’t work out so well for us, did it? In fact, third party presidential candidate Ross Perot was more accurate when he described NAFTA as a “giant sucking sound.” So what’s up with the Peru Free Trade Agreement currently being pushed through Congress? Is it more of the same?

I love how the Edwards campaign is getting so bold and so…well…I guess it could be described as snarky. As others have said before me, the truth can never be an attack, but the truth can sure hurt. Here’s another example.

Now John Edwards has asked Senator Clinton to answer 5 simple yes or no questions on Iraq. Should be easy, right? It also should be something a presidential candidate should be ready to do. Will she do it?

Welcome to the Edwards Evening News RoundUp!   Tonight's features are:  

I.  Iraq, Iran & Pakistan: Diplomatic Politcal Solutions

 II. American Heroes Week III. Edwards' Statement on the WGA Strike

III. Edwards' Statement of Support of the WGA Strike

There's been quite a bit of press this week about attacking other candidates and negative campaigning, including a number of comments on my statements at the debate calling on the other candidates to lay off the personal attacks on Senator Clinton.

But I was surprised that what many people “took away” from my statements was that I must support Senator Clinton's positions because I thought some of the attacks were out of line.

So, let me set the record straight.

I deeply disagree with Senator Clinton on many issues, just as I do with the other candidates.  For starters, Senator Clinton thinks we can fix No Child Left Behind; I believe we need to scrap it.  I believe we must create a New Energy Revolution whereas Senator Clinton's positions are simply not bold enough on reducing greenhouse gas emissions and moving to alternative energy sources.

Senator Clinton seems to believe there are nations out there too “bad” for us to talk to — I disagree and believe we should talk to both our enemies and our friends.

Senator Clinton voted for the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment that authorized aggressive action against factions in Iran.  I think that is a huge mistake and find it shocking that she hasn't yet learned the most important lesson any American could learn about George Bush: he can't be trusted.  This vote may end up being a vote for a war in Iran. 

Most importantly, I disagree with Senator Clinton's belief that we cannot end the war now and get our troops out.  I do not understand why she, and others who claim to be against the war, continue to vote for additional funding so the war can continue and still don't stand up to Bush on getting our troops out so we can begin reconciliation.  I don't believe we are helpless against Bush and the Republicans.  I believe Congress was elected to end this war, that they have the power to act, and yet don't.

I profoundly disagree with Senator Clinton that it is unreasonable to commit to getting troops out of Iraq by 2013.

But these are disagreements on policy – not on personality.  Personal attacks are an easy way out when candidates aren't able to make real contrasts with opponents on real policy positions.

Frankly, I don't need to resort to personal attacks because I have so many disagreements with the other candidates – including Hillary Clinton — on the issues.

Don't get me wrong – I believe in highlighting differences when I see them, and exposing misinformation when I hear it, and I've never been one to shy away from a fight.  But I also believe to my core that we need to bring this country together, not split ourselves even further apart.  And before we all start to accept ubiquitous personal attacks, even against fellow Democrats, as simply the state of modern politics, we should strongly consider where attacks like these are coming from.

None of the attacks I've heard lately deal with the issue at the heart of this campaign, and the issue that will win or lose us the White House: ending the war in Iraq.  When closely examined, Senator Obama's position is not much different from Senator Clinton's on key points.  They may disagree on exactly how many troops to leave behind, and the mission, but they both would leave troops in Iraq for years after taking office.  And Senator Edwards talks about removing combat troops but what about the tens of thousands non-combat troops?

And who can forget that at the MSNBC Dartmouth Debate each and every one of them refused to commit to getting the troops out of Iraq by 2013 – SIX YEARS FROM NOW.

That position is just unacceptable.

We need to get our troops out now.  We need to stop the war with Iran before it starts.  And we need to have a debate where we focus on the real issues, and the real differences between candidates on important policy positions — not just on who is attacking whom for what.

If we as a party don't focus on the issues that really matter, and instead waste our time calling each other names, we are opening ourselves up to real Republican attacks next fall.  We should keep talking contrasts on issues and differences on world view, but let's save labels like “dishonest” for those who really deserve them.

You can find out more about where I stand on Iraq at www.GetOurTroopsOut.com and at www.richardsonforpresident.com.

Hillary Clinton's plan for ending the war is weak and imprecise.  She refuses to commit to bring all of our troops home by the end of her first term in office. Clinton's military and diplomatic advisers believe our invasion of Iraq was justified and a military solution exits for resolving the war. Clinton is not demonstrating the qualities of leadership we need in our next President to end the war in Iraq.

Speaking in Oskaloosa today, Hillary Clinton wanted to make sure Iowans knew that she is “tough enough” to handle whatever people throw at her in the presidential campaign:

http://www.desmoines…

“With 60 days left until the caucus, things are going to get a little hotter, because obviously the campaign is going to get heated up and speeded up,” Clinton said.

“I remember very well what Harry Truman once said . . . ‘If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.’ Well, I feel real comfortable in the kitchen, so the heat is going to get hotter and hotter.”

Meanwhile, Clinton's surrogates and supporters keep whining about the “politics of pile-on.” This is from a fundraising e-mail the campaign sent out shortly after last Tuesday's debate:

If you saw the debate Tuesday night, or if you've seen the  news coverage since, then you know that this campaign has entered a  new phase.

On that stage in Philadelphia, we saw six against  one. Candidates who had pledged the politics of hope practiced the  politics of pile on instead. Her opponents tried a whole host of  attacks on Hillary.

She is one strong woman. She came  through it well. But Hillary's going to need your help.

Her  opponents, trying to boost their falling poll numbers, started  attacking Hillary weeks ago on the stump. Now they're doing it in  the debates. And soon they'll begin a barrage of negative TV ads and  mailings in the early primary and caucus states.

But Hillary  knows that voters want real change — not more negative attacks. And  with just 60 days left before the Iowa caucuses, now is the time to  show her that you are right there with her.

Of course, the Clinton campaign, which has repeatedly promoted Hillary as tough enough to withstand the Republican attack machine, has been planning all alone to whine and complain as soon as opponents challenged her on the issues:

http://news.yahoo.co…

Clinton's advisers, speaking on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to discuss internal matters, said there is a clear and long-planned strategy to fend off attacks by accusing her male rivals of gathering against her.

The idea is to change the subject while making Clinton a sympathetic figure, especially among female voters who often feel outnumbered and bullied on the job.

As one adviser put it, Clinton is not the first presidential candidate to play the “woe-is-me card” but she's the first major female presidential candidate to do it.

The victim is a familiar role for Clinton.

Over at Salon, Tim Grieve has already called bullshit on the Clinton campaign's spin, noting that her campaign continually feeds negative material about other candidates to reporters, all the while pretending to be disappointed that the others are supposedly rejecting “the politics of hope.”

http://www.salon.com…

I also recommend Sirius's diary, “Note to Clinton: The Issues Are Fair Game”:

http://www.mydd.com/…

Kate Michelman, former head of the National Abortion Rights Action League, had a great take on this as well:

http://www.openleft….

When unchallenged, in a comfortable, controlled situation, Senator Clinton embraces her political elevation into the “boys club.” She is quick to assure listeners she is plenty tough enough, that she's battled tested, ready to play be the same rules as the boys.

But when she's challenged, when legitimate questions are asked, questions she should be prepared to answer and discuss, she is just as quick to raise the white flag and look for a change in the rules. She then calls questioning, 'attacking;' she calls debate among her peers, 'piling on.'

It's a political strategy, no doubt focus grouped and poll tested: make it look unseemly that this group of men would question her and hold her accountable for her record.

It's trying to have it both ways; walk the fence, something Senator Clinton's good at. At one minute the strong woman ready to lead, the next, she's the woman under attack, disingenuously playing the victim card as a means of trying to avoid giving honest, direct answers to legitimate questions.

As a woman who's been in the public eye and experienced scrutiny, as a woman who knows how hard it can be for women to earn their seat at the leadership table, how hard women have to work just to get the same opportunities, this distresses me.

It is not presidential.

Any serious candidate for president should have to answer tough questions and defend their record.

If Hillary Clinton is tough enough to withstand the Republican attack machine, she should stop sending out her minions to whine about “piling on” and start giving direct answers to direct questions. 

K Street and Corporate lobbyists are turning up the heat on Congressional leaders to pass the Peru Free Trade Agreement, yet another trade policy that benefits only the bottom line of big corporations, at the expense of American workers.  Some Corporate Republicans and Corporate Democrats are sucumbing to the pressure of supporting the Peru Free Trade Agreement before the ink is even dry on the checks.

Water-boarding is term that describes strapping an individual to a board, with a towel pulled tightly across his face, and pouring water on him or her to cut off air and simulate drowning.  

When asked directly last week whether he thought waterboarding is constitutional, Attorney General nominee Michael Mukasey was evasive.  As noted by NPR, Mukasey “danced around the issue of whether waterboarding actually is torture and stopped short of saying that it is.” “If it amounts to torture,” Mukasey said carefully, “then it is not constitutional.”

As stated by Bill Richardson,

Waterboarding is torture, and anyone who is unwilling to identify it as such is not qualified to be the chief legal officer of the United States of America. If I were in the U.S. Senate, I would vote against Mukasey unless he denounces such specific forms of torture.

What about the Democrats in the U.S. Senate and other Democratic Presidential candidates?  Will they oppose Mukasey unless he denounces the use of torture by our government?

David Yepsen's latest column in the Thursday Des Moines Register contains this passage:

http://desmoinesregi…

For example, it's amazing to hear women complain about this or that with Clinton. She's too liberal, not liberal enough, should have left Bill or should or shouldn't wear pantsuits. The sniping, snarky comments about her from other women remind me of listening to my daughter and her friends back in middle school say catty things about one another. Don't forget it was a woman reporter for the Washington Post who treated us to a discussion of Clinton's cleavage.

Apparently men are allowed to have unfavorable opinions about candidates, but if women say something critical of Hillary, it's “sniping” and “snarky.”

There's a big difference between women complaining that Hillary is “too liberal” or “not liberal enough” and women talking about her cleavage or pantsuits.

I think Hillary would be a weak general-election candidate and not as good a president as several others in our field might be. I do not believe that she shares my domestic-policy priorities, I think she would be weak on environmental issues, I think she would be too slow to withdraw troops from Iraq, and I think she is too close to the corporate interests that try to frustrate progressive change in a number of areas.

Does that make me “catty” like his daughter in junior high school?

Does Yepsen really think that men don't make “sniping” remarks about candidates they do not support?

Some women on the Register editorial board might want to teach Yepsen the difference between substantive and superficial criticism of Hillary. Because the way his column reads, it sounds like women who don't shut up and get behind Hillary are just immature. 

Iraq is a disaster. We are now approaching http://icasualties.org/oif/” target=”_blank”>4,000 U.S. soldiers dead and updates of the Lancet study estimate that over a million Iraqis have died! This astounding figure was recently corrorborated in a http://www.opinion.co.uk/Newsroom_detail s.aspx?NewsId=78″ target=”_blank”>British study this month. Security only declines day by day and dependable power, clean water and employment is unavailable. The U.S. spends about http://www.democrats.org/a/2005/10/the_real_cost_o.php”>$200 million each day 70% of Americans want it to end.

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?

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?

I'm a Democrat and I am worried.  In the beginning of the year I couldn't wait for 2008.  I couldn't wait for a Democrat to take office and turn this nation around.  I knew it wasn't a matter of if, but when.  Unfortunately, the tides have turned.  American citizens are sick and tired of the partisan bickering in Washington.  They are tired of waffling politicians who promise one thing, but don't deliver.  It is evident in the polls.  Only 11% of Americans approve of the job the Congress had done.  Only 10 months into a Democratic lead Congress and the nation already wants us gone.  If we are going to win the White House, we need to clean ourselves up and stand at attention.  We need to get our people to do their jobs and serve the American public.  The biggest challenge we face is partisanship.  Though it may be the Bush Administration’s fault America and our leaders are so divided, it is our job, as Democrats, to fix the problem.  There was a time, not long ago, that Republicans and Democrats worked together, ate together, discussed issues together.  We need to return that era of respect and goodwill and leave the partisan stabs behind.  The only way we are going to move this nation forward before 2008 is by getting Republicans to vote for Democratic bills.  The only way to do that is to show respect and integrity.

As voters in a democracy, we have a voice and we must stand up and use that voice.  If we are going to end the division in Washington, we need to show our leaders that we are willing to work with Republicans.  We shouldn't criticize a fellow Democrat when he or she reaches their hand across the aisle and asks for a Republican's support.  Just yesterday, Joe Biden, a liberal Democrat, and Sam Brownback, a conservative Republican, came together and held a town hall meeting to share a plan to end the war in Iraq.  Though the two Presidential candidates share nearly no political opinions, they do share one, and that is how to get out of Iraq.  Because they came together and showed unity, they were shunned by the bases.  Democrats have called Joe Biden “too conservative” and Republicans have criticized Brownback for working with a “liberal”.  This however, baffles me.  When you build a bipartisan consensus things can actually get done.  We need to stop questioning Joe Biden and all other Democrats when they try to build bipartisanship.  Just recently, Joe Biden enticed 26 Republicans to vote for his federalist solution for Iraq.  He called it the “first ray of hope” while a fellow blogger, desmoinesdem, criticized Biden saying it “annoyed ” him and that Joe Biden was out of line because he “threw Senate Republicans a life raft”.  The only thing Joe Biden did was be the first person to be able to convince Republicans to publicly rebuke George W. Bush and his policies in Iraq.  Besides, the only people who need a life raft are the Democrats.  I hate to say it, but it's true.  We have been too dead set against compromise to end this war.  If we are going to win the General Election in 2008 we are going to have to 1.) Begin to end the war by adopting the only political solution with the ability of overriding a Presidential veto and that would be Joe Biden’s and 2.) We need to nominate a Democrat with a history of bringing people together.  That is Joe Biden. 

As Democrats, we must remember, in General Elections we rely on the independent vote.  Unfortunately, Hillary Clinton, who is currently leading in all of the early states, does not appeal to independents.  During the 1990s, when Clinton gave her began effort to achieve Universal Healthcare, $100 million was spent on the Harry and Louise campaign alone.  This idea of Universal Healthcare is still called HillaryCare by many Republicans and the term was used in the latest Republican debate, not to mention the fact that Clinton's name alone was brought up six times.  Candidates like Clinton are much too partisan to win in a general election.  She will energize Republicans and alienate independents.  Nominate Clinton and we will lose.  Nominate Joe Biden, a man with a solid record going back 35 years, and we Democrats will take back the White House!

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? 

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.

John Edwards was on Countdown with Keith Olbermann last night, and he called for an end to the outsourcing of military work to contractors like Blackwater.

The answer to this is to get American troops out of Iraq, which is why I'm committed to getting our combat troops out of Iraq, stopping combat missions, doing it the right way. But these things that are going on with Blackwater, they worry all Americans. I hear it everywhere I go. You know, people wonder, first of all, why a company whose executives gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to Bush and to Republicans are getting these no bid contracts with hundreds of millions of dollars. There's something wrong with this picture.

From City View's Civic Skinny…

Hillary Clinton’s deputy state director and caucus manager Angelique Pirozzi has left the Iowa effort to pursue “other opportunities,” Skinny hears. Pirozzi’s departure comes on the heels of the campaign’s former state director JoDee Winterhof getting demoted in favor of Teresa Vilmain, who consulted for Tom Vilsack’s short-lived presidential campaign. Clinton people tell Skinny that at least a half dozen field organizers — the supposedly smiling faces of the campaign — have also left recently. Skinny isn’t sure what to make of the revolving door.

Winterhof's change in job title puzzled me. Now more people are moving around and leaving will surely cause a few bumps in the road for the campaign in Iowa. The campaign staff that has been on the ground has built key relationships and it will take a new person to establish those relationships again.

To win the Iowa caucuses you must have a strong organization and then hope to get hot at the end. These personal changes can't help Clinton's organization in Iowa in the short term.

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! 

The second in the series of ads challenging Democratic Presidential candidates to get serious on healthcare launches in Iowa today—addressing Sen. Clinton—while nurses and doctors will converge on an upcoming Presidential forum with their critiques. 

We'll take a look, cross-posted at the National Nurses Organizing Committee/California Nurses Association’s Breakroom Blog, as we organize to make 2007 the Year of GUARANTEED healthcare on the single-payer model.

Sen. Hillary Clinton’s campaign will launch their first television ad (called “Invisibles”) in Iowa starting tomorrow, but those of us who like to use the amazing series of tubes known as the internets can see it today…and below:

It isn’t the typical biographical ad that a lot of candidates start off with, but that’s probably a good thing for Clinton considering she’s already pretty well-known and has decent name recognition.

In part, the ad is seeking not to introduce her to Iowans but to re-introduce her as the candidate who will focus on the ordinary Iowans and Americans as president.  It is supposed to be the “more caring” side of Hillary, not the supposedly “politically calculating and manipulative” version that we’ve heard about in the press since about 1991.  And in that endeavor, it succeeds.

To me, the one place that it does fail is with the background music.  I’m sorry, but it just seems cheesy and distracting.  The content of the ad, what Clinton says, is the real substance and I think it is quite good for a re-introduction.  However, she’s getting on TV late in the game.  Edwards, Dodd, Richardson, and Obama have already been on the air with introductions, bios, and ads talking about policy.  Clinton’s next step has got to be a policy ad.

All in all, it is a good ad that serves its purpose.  As the big money candidate, one might’ve expected something over-the-top and really professional looking…almost to a level that screams “I’m the typical politician and run those kind of TV ads.” But it was simple and concise and should resonate with Iowans.

And if she expects to build any more traction with committed activists and Democrats who will turn out in force on caucus day, she’ll have to start airing an ad about Iraq.  I predict the campaign isn’t looking forward to that day but with a clear, concise ad advocating ending the war and bringing the troops home will do wonders with those who don’t take the time to get out there and really see her on the stump.

Over at Iowa Independent Dien Judge reports that “We haven't seen the end of the Clinton-Obama diplomacy feud.”

The chairman of the Democratic Party in Monroe County (southeast Iowa) got a phone call from PSA Interviewing, which conducted a message-testing poll for Clinton in Iowa earlier this year.

Most of the poll questions were about Hillary, and they concerned both policy matters and electability. The survey specifically asked about the CNN/You Tube debate question about whether the president should meet with foreign dictators, and under what conditions.

There's been a lot of debate in the blogosphere over who was helped by this dispute. If Clinton tries to keep this story alive in her speeches and/or campaign ads, it's a safe bet that her internal Iowa polling showed it was a winner for her. If she doesn't bring it up much in the future, we can assume that the polling showed most Iowans agreed with Obama.

Over at MyDD, Todd Beeton put up a thread linking to a Newsweek story about the brand messaging of major presidential candidates, based on their bumper stickers.

Click the link to the Newsweek story and scroll down to see a designer's expert analysis. He liked Hillary's branding, thought Obama's design looked good, and considered Edwards' use of a green trail off a star “crazy and daring.”

I had to go look at my own bumper sticker; not being a visual person, I hadn't even noticed there was any green on the Edwards sticker.

On the Republican side, he thought McCain had the worst logo and didn't like the militaristic star. Rudy's logo looks like “a brick wall,” and Mitt Romney's sticker looks like it belongs to “someone who's not going to win.” 

I also encourage you to read the comments below Beeton's post, because several MyDD readers had interesting things to say. For instance, Hillary's bumper sticker is apparently too tall to fit on old-fashioned chrome bumpers–only would work on newer vehicles. 

Several commenters also agreed with me that while McCain's logo may not be great, Romney's is by far the worst. McCain at least has good branding if he wants to appeal to the veterans' vote, which is important in GOP primaries.

What do you think about these and other bumper stickers? Have you seen many lately? Driving around town, I've just seen a few Edwards and Obama stickers, plus one Hillary sticker and one for Ron Paul.

Earlier today Sen. Hillary Clinton’s campaign actively solicited bloggers to join in on a conference call hosted by their blogger, Peter Daou, in announcing a “special endorsement.”  The campaign didn’t release any more information about the endorsement and it was a pretty cryptic move, yet I still decided to join in on the call along with several other major bloggers from across the progressive blogosphere.

So, at 12:30 PM Central time I got on the call to find out that the special endorsement was coming from former Ambassador Joe Wilson, the husband of outed CIA operative Valerie Plame.  And by 12:53 PM I broke the news on Iowa Independent that Amb. Wilson had chosen to endorse Clinton.

Multiple blogs picked up the news and reported the news, as they should have because it was a substantial endorsement.  But the traditional or mainstream media didn’t pick up the story at all.

Greg Sargent of TPM’s Election Central posted these thoughts about the call:

“A few quick points about this. The Hillary campaign, which rolled out the Wilson news on a conference call with liberal bloggers, clearly hopes the Wilson endorsement serves at least the partial goal of winning over liberal activists and netroots types who might still be unhappy with Hillary for all the reasons you’ve heard repeatedly by now. Wilson carries great cache among such folks, who were energized by his speaking out against the administration and everything else that happened as a result of his protracted fight with the White House.”

Taylor Marsh wrote:

“The ’08 selection season is not over by a long shot and I am staying neutral in the primary. But the endorsement of Clinton by Joseph Wilson is a big step for her campaign. That Clinton offered the scoop to a group of bloggers shows just how far she’s come and how far she’s willing to engage a community, which on the whole is very critical of her on all fronts. She’s also accepted the invitation to YearlyKos, which I’m looking forward to very much. Clinton is illustrating her ability to engage on all fronts, even where she knows she’ll take heat. The strength of Clinton’s candidacy continues to expand.”

The campaign seemed like they were genuinely reaching out to the netroots constituency, giving them a big story, and were going to let them break the news.

However, the blogs didn’t get credit with breaking the news.  The Clinton campaign didn’t direct the traditional or mainstream media to blogposts about the endorsement and then elaborate and what was reported by citizen journalists.  Instead, they waited until later in the afternoon and put out a release from the campaign.  Their campaign didn’t even post the announcement on their blog until two hours after the conference call occurred and didn’t link to any other bloggers’ reactions (of which their was plenty).

The Des Moines Register first reported their story on the endorsement at 6:15 PM this evening, a full 5 hours after the news was broken at Iowa Independent, on their own blog.

Now, I admit, I’m probably a little pissy and being a bit selfish.  Both because I broke the story on Iowa Independent and because I’m a blogger who has been harsh on Clinton in the past.  Multiple other blogs around the country, even ones more than important than Bleeding Heartland, have been critical of Clinton (even unfairly so) so when I got today’s invitation to the call I was hopeful that it would be genuine interaction with a constituency or interest group that hadn’t been on her side for a long time.  Particularly on the issue of Iraq, she’s had to fight for respect on the blogs.

Other campaigns have been great about highlighting how the netroots help in breaking and spreading news about the campaigns, and even engage them like the traditional media (see Chris Dodd’s, John Edwards’ and Bill Richardson’s campaigns as an example).  Heck, Bill Richardson’s campaign sends out a weekly “Richardson Round-Up” in Iowa that highlights what the media–both traditional and new–have been saying about the candidate in the past week.

Instead, the Clinton campaign let the blogs break the news and then let it fester amongst themselves.  Then gave the traditional media a heads-up a few hours later and even let Wilson do some one-on-one interviews over the phone.

Maybe I’m just jealous.  But it sure seems like if you’re going to reach out, make it count and put some force into it.  Don’t do it half-assed.

I'm tied up this morning and can't go to either event, but Hillary Clinton will give a speech on Iraq at 10 am Tuesday at the Temple for Performing Arts in downtown Des Moines.

At the same time, Obama will hold a town hall meeting on the economy at DMACC's urban campus.

Link:

http://www.siouxcity…

Who can build a bigger crowd on such short notice? Hillary's campaign announced the event on Saturday, Obama's campaign announced on Monday.

If you attend either of these events, post a comment below to tell us what you thought.

On July 5 Dick Gephardt officially endorsed Hillary Clinton for president. I assume that he will be campaigning for her in Iowa, since he won the caucuses in 1988 and had a fair amount of support here even in his disappointing fourth-place finish last cycle.

My question to Bleeding Heartland readers is, how much does this help Hillary? Gephardt was not viable in my precinct in either 1988 or 2004, and I don't know a lot of people who backed him. I know that he had a lot of support from organized labor. Will they care that he is endorsing Hillary?

Speaking as someone who worked her butt off for Kerry before the last Iowa caucuses, if Kerry came out and endorsed one of the other presidential candidates, I wouldn't even consider rethinking my choice. Kerry's preference among the current Democratic field is totally irrelevant to me.

Will Gephardt's backing carry more weight with the people who supported him?

So I inadvertently started a flamewar on Daily Kos and MyDD today by posting a diary about the Clinton campaign being missing in action from July 4 parades in the Des Moines suburbs. The Clintonistas were outraged that (to their mind) my headline implied that the Clinton campaign did not take part in any parades, when we all know that Bill and Hillary marched in the Clear Lake parade.

You can find the DKos version of the flamewar here here or the MyDD version here (the angry Clinton mob was a little less active at MyDD).

My point was that there was no Clinton campaign presence at the Windsor Heights parade I attended, and according to others I talked to, Clinton's campaign didn't have a vehicle in the Urbandale or West Des Moines parades either.

That surprised me, because Obama, Edwards and Richardson were well represented with campaign workers and/or volunteers. (The organizer of the Windsor Heights parade told me later that Biden's campaign was also in the parade, but I didn't notice them.) 

The Edwards people were able to get quite a few supporter cards signed during these parades. We were watching for people who waved or cheered as the Edwards truck rolled by, and three or four people ran up to those spectators and asked them if they would sign up as Edwards supporters. I didn't catch the number for the WDM parade, but I think they got about 65 cards signed during the Urbandale parade and another 15 to 20 in Windsor Heights.

The team also handed out a lot of Edwards stickers in WDM and Urbandale, but had run out early in the Windsor Heights parade.

Obama and Richardson people were handing out tons of stickers in Windsor Heights. My husband, who was with the kids on the side, was pretty sure he saw an Obama staffer with a clipboard as well, who was probably getting supporter cards signed. He wasn't sure whether anyone with the Richardson group was handing out cards. But yesterday evening at the big Windsor Heights celebration in Colby Park, I saw lots of people still sporting their Obama and Richardson stickers.

The point of my diary was that this was a missed opportunity for the Clinton campaign. Thousands of people watch these parades. I've got to believe there were Clinton supporters and leaners who would have signed up if there had been staffers out there spotting them and asking them. I know staff was probably preoccupied with the Clintons' Iowa tour, but the fact that Obama was in Iowa didn't prevent his campaign from having a strong presence in all of the parades.

A woman I know well in my neighborhood is a Clinton leaner (she says she needs more info about the other candidates before making up her mind). She's a general election voter who rarely votes in primaries. Despite many contacts from me last cycle, she and her husband did not attend our precinct caucus. So she is unlikely to turn up on a list of Ds to target in my precinct. I saw her along the parade route with her kids. If there had been a Clinton presence, I bet she would have taken a sticker or possibly signed up. They could have then targeted her closer to caucus time for GOTV efforts. But how will they find her now?

With Teresa Vilmain running the show and the Vilsacks on board, and plenty of money, I am surprised that the Clinton campaign didn't make sure they had a strong presence in all of the Des Moines-area parades.

What do you think, and which campaigns did you see in your towns? 

Incidentally, the only Republican campaign in the Windsor Heights parade was Brownback's; they were also in Urbandale and West Des Moines. I assume that some of the other Republican candidates were in those larger suburban parades. 

Got an e-mail from Tom Harkin announcing that his wife Ruth is endorsing Hillary. Here's an excerpt:

She feels that women who are lucky enough to serve in public office had, and continue to have, a responsibility to opening doors and paving a new way for those seeking other leadership roles. And as Ruth looked closely at who is best suited to do the job of President and to inspire a new generation of leaders, Hillary topped the list.

Thanks a lot, Ruth. If Hillary loses the general to a Republican who puts two or three more Alitos on the Supreme Court, I hope you'll apologize to all women.

Of the many things that bother me about the Hillary Clinton candidacy, one of the biggest is this idea that women are supposed to back her as a pathbreaker (with the corollary that people who don't back her are sexist or can't handle strong women). Hillary would be a weak general election candidate, and I don't even think she would be the best president out of the current field.

The e-mail also mentions that Tom Harkin has no plans to endorse any of the presidential candidates. Smart move, senator. 

A new poll came out today showing Hillary Clinton and John Edwards way out in front of everyone else in Iowa.

Here are the results from the American Research Group (May's support in parenthesis)…

Clinton 32% (31%)
Edwards 29% (25%)
Obama 13% (11%)
Richardson 5% (8%)
Dodd 2% (2%)
Biden 2% (3%)
Kucinich 1% (4%)
Gravel 1% (1%)
Clark 1% (1%)
Undecided 14% (14%)

At first, I was surprised Hillary was leading with over 30% when other polls show her around 20%. However, if you look at the trends, Hillary has consistently been in the low 30's in this poll, except for May when she had just 23%. In fact Hillary is basically right where she was back in December before her campaign even started (32% to 31%).

Ezra Klein seems to think John Edwards' support is declining, but when you look at the trends in the American Research Group polls, it shows Edwards gaining support. In the past month he increased by 4%. Overall, he has improved from 20% back in December to 29% in June. 9% is the largest increase from any candidate.

If you look at Obama's trends in the American Research Group polls, he peaks at 23% in February right after he announced. He has been on a downward trend since then. I think Obama's support is stronger than the 13% he is polling because the polls is of likely caucus goers. Obama has made a big splash with younger people who would not be included in this poll.

Another interesting thing about this latest poll is looking at the preference by party. Among those who identified themselves as no party, 39% were in favor of Edwards, 31% in favor of Clinton, 11% in favor of Obama, and 3% in favor of Richardson. Edwards' support here only strengthens his campaigns claim that Edwards is in the best position to win independent voters and in red states.

Here's analysis from past ARG polls in May and March .

Originally posted at Century of the Common Iowan. 

There have been some claims that Hillary Clinton is “push-polling” against her main rivals, Barack Obama and John Edwards in Iowa and New Hampshire.

Her campaign appears to have commissioned some detailed message testing in both states. That is different from a sleazy push-poll (such as what Bush did to McCain in South Carolina in 2000, having people call up voters asking if it would change their opinion if they knew that McCain had an illegitimate black child).

Nevertheless, this kind of survey rubs some voters the wrong way. This Daily Kos diarist described it as “push-ish” polling.

I don't have a problem with message testing–I was a respondent on a lengthy message-testing survey commissioned by Chet Culver before last year's gubernatorial primary. I do think it's sleazy for Democrats to attack each other using right-wing talking points, but I don't blame campaigns for wanting to know which messages are going to be effective for and against them.

That said, I would really like to know which candidates are doing these surveys, and what kinds of messages they are testing. If you get a call like this, please try to remember the questions (taking notes if needed), and put up a diary afterwards. Or, if you prefer, you could share your info with me by e-mail (desmoinesdem AT yahoo.com). I will not reveal your identity.

Last week was a significant one in Bill Richardson's campaign for President, with a major address in Washington, D.C. on climate change and how to end the bloodshed in Iraq, along with a visit to Iowa. 

It was also a significant week for peace and stability in Korea and Asia – which highlights Richardson's expertise in foreign affairs and his diplomatic skills. With Richardson as President we get two for the price of one – a can-do leader on domestic issues and an experienced diplomat that knows how to bring people and nations together.