*Post in full with permission from the author, TomP

Last week, Friends of the Earth Action (“FOE Action”) endorsed John Edwards.

This week, I interviewed Brent Blackwelder, President of Friends of the Earth and FOE Action, about the endorsement of John Edwards.  Part I of the interview is in this diary.  

Here's a little about FOE Action for those unfamiliar with it:

“Founded by David Brower in 1967, Friends of the Earth Action has established a 35-year record of not only fighting the tough battles, but winning them too.  FoE Action provides extra political muscle on legislative battles here in the U.S. for to our sister organization, Friends of the Earth, which is part of a network of affiliates in over 70 nations around the world.”

Come around after the fold to hear a real hero of the struggle to save our planet.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

Via Atrios, I learned that Newt Gingrich will not run for president, having learned that he would have to give up his day job to do so. Link is here:

http://www.msnbc.msn…

Key excerpt:

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich will not run for president in 2008 after determining he could not legally explore a bid and remain as head of his tax-exempt political organization, a spokesman said Saturday.

“Newt is not running,” spokesman Rick Tyler said. “It is legally impermissible for him to continue on as chairman of American Solutions (for Winning the Future) and to explore a campaign for president.”

[…]

Just last week, Gingrich said he had given himself a deadline of Oct. 21 to raise $30 million in pledges for a possible White House bid, acknowledging the task was difficult but not impossible.

He abruptly dropped the idea Saturday, apparently unwilling to give up the chairmanship of American Solutions, the political arm of a Gingrich’s lucrative empire as an author, pundit and consultant.

American Solutions, a tax-exempt committee he started last October, has paid for Gingrich’s travel and has a pollster and fundraiser on staff.

Gingrich makes hundreds of speeches each year, many paid. He will not say how much he charges, and neither will the Washington Speakers Bureau, which books him. But some clients have said they paid $40,000 for a speech.

Amazing that people will pay $40,000 to hear Newt speak.

Still, too bad he won't be running for president. He would be my dream GOP opponent. Even Hillary could beat him. 

[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

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 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.

Senator Dodd will hold a press conference to announce his comprehensive Cuba policy today in Miami, FL at 11 AM Eastern. Dodd, who has led the fight to reform our approach to Cuba to better serve the cause of democracy and American interests, will call for bold, sweeping changes to America's Cuba policy.

I will update this diary with links to the full plan, but for now check out the preview offered by the Miami Herald today:

In a statement given Friday to The Miami Herald, Dodd favors opening a U.S. embassy in Havana, allowing Americans to do business there, and nixing TV Martí, the U.S.-funded broadcast routinely blocked by Cuba.

''I believe the time has come to say publicly what many Americans believe — our Cuba policy has neither served America's interests nor brought democracy to Cuba,'' reads the speech Dodd plans to give in Miami today. “It has only served to strengthen the current regime. It has been an abject failure.''

Chris Dodd has the boldness to open new doors in our relationship with Cuba. This plan is yet another example of Dodd leading with conviction, experience, and clarity of vision.

UPDATE:

The video of the press conference is embedded above. Dodd was very strong, fluidly answering questions on his Cuba policy in both English and Spanish.

The full Dodd Cuba policy is now online. Read it here.

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. 

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.

I wrote a diary for Daily Kos and MyDD about Joe Biden being someone to watch in Iowa. I think it's a mistake for bloggers to be writing him off as a joke.

I put the whole diary after the jump. Be warned: it's long, and some of it is written for an audience that may not understand how the caucuses work.

Bottom line is that none of the front-runners should be taking anything for granted in Iowa. A lot of voters will thoroughly consider all the options before making up their minds.

I'm interested in your comments, either here or at one of the other sites:

http://www.dailykos….

http://www.mydd.com/…

UPDATE: I get mass e-mails from most of the campaigns, including Biden's. In my most surreal blogging-related experience ever, this evening the latest e-mail from his campaign links to my DKos diary!

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.

When narrowing down the choice for the Democratic presidential nominee, we should also ask ourselves which candidate provides the strongest “Top of the Ticket.”

Who provides the best top of the ticket candidacy when considering these targeted U.S. Senate races, or these DCCC Frontline members, or these targeted Iowa Senate races?

Can we win Senate seats in South Dakota with Barack Obama on the ticket?  Can Dems pick up a seat in Mississippi or Louisiana with Hillary at the top?  What about Maine with John Edwards?  Can the Dems expand their majorities with Vilsack or Dodd or Biden?  Who is the best person to protect and promote a Democratic majority?

Or is the whole notion of a “top of the ticket advantage” just a bunch of hogwash?

http://snipehunter-politics.blogspot.com

Who needs political pundits when you have Vegas bookies?

On Sportsbook.com (click “Exotics”), the Vegas odds-makers give us the “live line” on who will become President of the United States.  As of today, here’s the breakdown:

Hillary Clinton, 1-1

Al Gore, 3-1

John McCain, 3-1

Barack Obama, 6-1

John Edwards, 8-1

George Allen Jr, 10-1

Rudy Giuliani, 10-1

Sam Brownback  10-1

Mitt Romney, 10-1

Bill Richardson, 12-1

Mark Warner, 15-1

Mike Huckabee  20-1

Evan Bayh, 20-1

Wesley Clark, 20-1

Chuck Hagel, 22-1

Colin Powell, 25-1

Joe Biden, 30-1

Condoleezza Rice, 30-1

Newt Gingrich, 40-1

Tom Vilsack, 40-1

Russ Feingold, 40-1

Rick Santorum, 50-1

Tom Tancredo, 50-1

Chris Dodd, 50-1

Mike Gravel, 50-1

Tom Ridge, 50-1

Tom Daschle, 50-1

Bill Owens, 50-1

Bob Kerrey, 50-1

John Kerry, 50-1

George Pataki, 50-1

Gary Locke, 70-1

Dick Gephardt, 75-1

Dick Cheney, 75-1

Howard Dean, 75-1

Alberto Gonzales, 75-1

Bob Ehrlich, 75-1

Charles Schumer, 75-1

Harold Ford Jr, 75-1

Jack Kemp, 75-1

Jeb Bush, 100-1

Bill Frist, 100-1

Jay Rockefeller, 100-1

Ralph Nader, 100-1

Paul Bremmer, 150-1

Joe Lieberman, 150-1

Bob Graham, 150-1

Michael Bloomberg, 150-1

Tommy Franks, 200-1

Jesse Jackson, 200-1

George W Bush, 200-1

Dennis Kucinich, 200-1

Arnold Schwarzenegger, 250-1

Bill Clinton, 300-1

Paul Wolfowitz, 750-1

Alan Keyes, 750-1

Elizabeth Dole, 750-1

Clint Eastwood, 750-1

Ted Kennedy, 750-1

Bill O’Reilly, 750-1

Laura Bush, 1000-1

James Carville, 1000-1

Jesse Ventura, 1000-1

Al Sharpton, 1000-1

John Ashcroft, 1500-1

Donald Rumsfeld, 2000-1

Pat Robertson, 2000-1

Bill Maher, 2500-1

Donald Trump, 2500-1

Michael Moore, 7500-1

I’d throw a dollar at Laura Bush, with those odds.

http://snipehunter-politics.blogspot.com/

While the Republican side has been quick to hire quality talent in the state, it seems like the Democrats, at least relatively, have been slower to the punch.

There’s a lot to fill: field, political, advance, press, scheduling and finance to name a few.  In your mind, thinking about the talent remaining in Iowa, who are the Top 5 staffers Dem presidentials should be thinking about?

Also, who were the best pickups for staff so far?