Richardson Endorses Obama

Days Until Bush Leaves Office = 305

This is big. New Mexico Governor and former Democratic presidential hopeful Bill Richardson sent an email announcement early this morning endorsing Barack Obama's presidential bid.

To those who noted Richardson's defense of Hillary Cllnton in last year's debates and speculated that he may have been angling to become her running mate, as well as Richardson's history as a member of former president Bill Clinton's cabinet,Ricardson's endorsement of Obama will come as something of a surprise. However, given the Governor's statement earlier this month that whomever was ahead in the overall delegate count after the March 4 primaries in Ohio, Rhode Island, Texas and Vermont should be the party's nominee, today's endorsement was somewhat to be expected.

Coming at this juncture in the campaign, Richardson's endorsement can help Obama in two important ways. First, super delegates will undoubtedly take notice, and many may take their cue from Richardson and declare their support for Obama, further clarifying the likely outcome of the Democratic race. Second, and perhaps more importantly, Richardon's endorsement may help Obama among Hispanic voters, long counted upon by Hillary Clinton as an electoral firewall against Obama's candidacy.

Here's the email from Richardson.

"During the last year, I have shared with you my vision and hopes for this nation as we look to repair the damage of the last seven years. And you have shared your support, your ideas and your encouragement to my campaign. We have been through a lot together and that is why I wanted to tell you that, after careful and thoughtful deliberation, I have made a decision to endorse Barack Obama for President.

We are blessed to have two great American leaders and great Democrats running for President. My affection and admiration for Hillary Clinton and President Bill Clinton will never waver. It is time, however, for Democrats to stop fighting amongst ourselves and to prepare for the tough fight we will face against John McCain in the fall. The 1990's were a decade of peace and prosperity because of the competent and enlightened leadership of the Clinton administration, but it is now time for a new generation of leadership to lead America forward. Barack Obama will be a historic and a great President, who can bring us the change we so desperately need by bringing us together as a nation here at home and with our allies abroad.

Earlier this week, Senator Barack Obama gave an historic speech. that addressed the issue of race with the eloquence, sincerity, and optimism we have come to expect of him. He inspired us by reminding us of the awesome potential residing in our own responsibility. He asked us to rise above our racially divided past, and to seize the opportunity to carry forward the work of many patriots of all races, who struggled and died to bring us together.

As a Hispanic, I was particularly touched by his words. I have been troubled by the demonization of immigrants--specifically Hispanics-- by too many in this country. Hate crimes against Hispanics are rising as a direct result and now, in tough economic times, people look for scapegoats and I fear that people will continue to exploit our racial differences--and place blame on others not like them . We all know the real culprit -- the disastrous economic policies of the Bush Administration!

Senator Obama has started a discussion in this country long overdue and rejects the politics of pitting race against race. He understands clearly that only by bringing people together, only by bridging our differences can we all succeed together as Americans.

His words are those of a courageous, thoughtful and inspiring leader, who understands that a house divided against itself cannot stand. And, after nearly eight years of George W. Bush, we desperately need such a leader.

To reverse the disastrous policies of the last seven years, rebuild our economy, address the housing and mortgage crisis, bring our troops home from Iraq and restore America's international standing, we need a President who can bring us together as a nation so we can confront our urgent challenges at home and abroad.

During the past year, I got to know Senator Obama as we campaigned against each other for the Presidency, and I felt a kinship with him because we both grew up between words, in a sense, living both abroad and here in America. In part because of these experiences, Barack and I share a deep sense of our nation's special responsibilities in the world.

So, once again, thank you for all you have done for me and my campaign. I wanted to make sure you understood my reasons for my endorsement of Senator Obama. I know that you, no matter what your choice, will do so with the best interests of this nation, in your heart.

Sincerely,

Bill Richardson"

Richardson's Farewell (and non-endorsement)

Days Until Bush Leaves Office = 375

As widely reported yesterday, Bill Richardson has dropped his bid for the White House. With Biden, Dodd and now Richardson out of the race, I fear that it's so long policy, hello 24/7 celebrity from here to the finish line.

Here is the text of Richardson's withdrawal email, sent to supporters earlier today:

It is with great pride, understanding and acceptance that I am ending my campaign for President of the United States. It was my hope that all of you would first hear this news from me and not a news organization. But unfortunately, as with too many things in our world today, it's the ending of something that garners the most intense interest and speculation.

I knew from the beginning that this would be an uphill climb. When I entered the campaign, it was clear that we, as Democrats, had the most talented field of candidates in my lifetime running to change the direction of our country. And in the end, one of them will.

Despite overwhelming financial and political odds, I am proud of the campaign we waged and the influence we had on the issues that matter most to the future of this country.

A year ago, we were the only major campaign calling for the removal of all of our troops within a year's time from Iraq. We were the only campaign calling for a complete reform of education in this country, including the scrapping of No Child Left Behind. And we were the campaign with the most aggressive clean energy plan and the most ambitious standards for reducing global warming.

Now, all of the remaining candidates are coming to our point of view. I am confident that the next President of the United States will implement much of what we've been urging for the last twelve months, and our nation and world will be the better for it.

There are so many of you who gave so much to this campaign. For that, I will be forever grateful. Running for president has been, at times, humbling and at other times, exhilarating. I have grown and learned a great deal from the experience, and I am a better person for it.

Also, because of your close friendship and support throughout the ups and downs of what is a very grueling and demanding process, I have never felt alone.

Running for president brings out the best in everyone who graces the stage, and I have learned much from the other candidates running. They have all brought great talents and abilities to the campaign.

Senator Biden's passion and intellect are remarkable.

Senator Dodd is the epitome of selfless dedication to public service and the Democratic Party.

Senator Edwards is a singular voice for the most downtrodden and forgotten among us.

Senator Obama is a bright light of hope and optimism at a time of great national unease, yet he is also grounded in thoughtful wisdom beyond his years.

Senator Clinton's poise in the face of adversity is matched only by her lifetime of achievement and deep understanding of the challenges we face.

Representative Kucinich is a man of great decency and dedication who will faithfully soldier on no matter how great the odds.

And all of us in the Democratic Party owe Senator Mike Gravel our appreciation for his leadership during the national turmoil of Vietnam.

I am honored to have shared the stage with each of these Democrats. And I am enormously grateful to all of my supporters who chose to stand with me despite so many other candidates of accomplishment and potential.

Now that my time in this national campaign has come to an end, I would urge those who supported my candidacy to take a long and thoughtful look at the remaining Democrats. They are all strong contenders who each, in their own way, would bring desperately needed change to our country. All I ask is that you make your own independent choice with the same care and dedication to this country that you honored me with during this campaign. At this time, I will not endorse any candidate.

Now I am returning to a job that I love, serving a state that I cherish and doing the work of the people I was elected to serve. As I have always said, I am the luckiest man I know. I am married to my high school sweetheart. I live in a place called the Land of Enchantment. I have the best job in the world. And I just got to run for president of the United States.

It doesn't get any better than that.

With my deepest appreciation for all that you have done,

Bill

Governor Bill Richardson
The Governor's Mansion
Santa Fe, New Mexico

AP: Bill Richardson to Drop Out

Days Until Bush Leaves Office = 376

The Associated Press is reporting that New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson is dropping his presidential bid following disappointing back-to-back fourth-place finishes in Iowa and New Hampshire.

According to the report, Richardson will announce his decision tomorrow. No word yet on whether the Governor will endorse another candidate at that time.

Thoughts on New Hampshire

Days Until Bush Leaves Office = 378

I finally got a chance last night to watch a recording of the ABC/WMUR/Facebook debate. Here are some quick thoughts, combined with general observations about the post-Iowa state of things.

Hillary Clinton

With a stinging third place finish for Hillary Clinton in Iowa still very fresh in the public mind, Saturday's debate presented Clinton with a unique opportunity to show a watching world what, if anything, she learned from the first electoral setback of her career. Unfortunately for Clinton, what the audience saw was a hunkered down candidate, gritting her teeth through what she too-evidently views as a mercifully abbreviated campaign in yet another pesky small state of negligible importance and counting the days until she can wage the sort of media-driven national campaign she would clearly be more comfortable running. She appeared neither relaxed, nor reevaluative, nor inclined in the slightest to do a single thing differently today than she was doing a week ago. Cranky and on defense, Clinton appeared more primed for an argument than prepped for a debate.

Which, I think, reflects the state of things within the Clinton campaign generally, and raises the question: did you guys have no Plan B? Did no one in the Clinton campaign ever once raise a hand and posit a couple of What Ifs: What If one day the sun did not rise in the East, What If the birds did not fly south for the winter, and What If Hillary Clinton actually lost in Iowa? As it is, Hillary Clinton and her campaign have responded to last Thursday's result with increasingly negative attacks/drawing sharp distinctions (take your pick) on Barack Obama, while simultaneously trying to outdo him at promoting "change" as a campaign mantra. Three words on Hillary Clinton: in deep trouble.

John Edwards

The quickest of scans through posts on this site tagged "John Edwards" will reveal that I am not his biggest fan. So sit down before you read this next part: I think John Edwards won the debate Saturday night. Edwards won not because of any brilliant answers, per se, although his "she didn't make these kinds of attacks when she was ahead" molotov at Hillary Clinton was hands-down the best line of the night. No, John Edwards won at St. Anselm because of what that debate revealed about his strategy coming out of Iowa.

Saturday night saw John Edwards punching away at his mainstay populist themes and steering pretty clear of directly hitting either Obama or Richardson, keeping himself focused on attacking a newly vulnerable Hillary Clinton. Politically, this is absolutely the right course of action for John Edwards on a number of levels.

Placing second in Iowa after four years of non-stop campaigning here was almost as bad for John Edwards as placing third was for Hillary Clinton. But with the race now indisputably a three-way contest between himself, Obama and Clinton (sorry, Governor Richardson), Edwards is clearly now focused on simply hanging in there through February 5 and beyond in the near-certain knowledge that either Obama or Clinton will drop out at some point, which then injects Edwards into the center of the two-person race he's been positioning himself for since at least the middle of last summer when he decided it was no more mister nice guy and went angry populist. John Edwards now doesn't have to win anything to achieve his central strategic goal for at least the next two months. All he has to do is stay competitive until one or the other of his principal opponents drops. That is brilliant strategic political thinking from John Edwards, which leaves me nearly as impressed as I am surprised.

Barack Obama

Saturday night was one of Barack Obama's more comfortable debate performances, I thought. He finally found his voice on health care, dealing effectively with Clinton's charge that his plan is "not universal," which will pay dividends for him as the campaign progresses. I also found fascinating the way in which Obama made tactical alliance with John Edwards in response to some of Clinton's points. That tactic makes Obama and Edwards seem collegial and of good will, while leaving Clinton looking isolated and shrill. There's not much that Clinton can do in response, save to cry foul for "piling on," which, you may recall, served her poorly in Iowa. But the next time you hear Hillary Clinton and her campaign complaining that Obama is getting a free ride in the media, know that this is part of what she's talking about.

Bill Richardson

Let's save lots of keystrokes for everyone right now and simply admit that Bill Richardson has won the Likability Primary coming out of Iowa. And then let's save further untold keystrokes by admitting that's the only primary he's likely to win this year.

Thoughts on the Des Moines Register Democratic Debate

Days Until Bush Leaves Office = 403

The Des Moines Register debate among the Democratic candidates for president has just wrapped up. Here are some thoughts on each candidate, in alphabetical order.

Joe Biden - hampered by a cold, Biden nonetheless delivered a strong performance in this debate. All the candidates recognize the importance of Iowa in the 2008 campaign process, but more than any of the others, Joe Biden was able to speak to Iowan's specific issues and concerns directly and effectively, but without overt pandering. Two examples: speaking about the contrast between his first trip to Iowa in 1974 and the present, Biden observed that there is now "so much open land and so few farmers," due to the rise of agribusiness at the expense of family farms, and he gave a terrific response on alternative energy and biofuels, giving an answer that referred to both cellulosic and corn-based ethanol and the comparative long term potential of each that will have the other candidates scrambling back to their playbooks to emulate. Look for that to pay dividends for Biden in the final sprint to January 3rd. But undoubtedly the best moment of this debate for Joe Biden, or any of the other candidates, for that matter, was his statement on civil rights, which drew applause from not only the audience, but the other candidates on the stage. Biden carried the entire hall, and the debate with it, in that moment.

Hillary Clinton: In a debate focused on issues and substance, Hillary Clinton came in with a game plan focused on selling her personal qualities to voters, rather than her policies. She strove - visibly strove - to appear relaxed, unflappable, strong, and confident in her inevitable success in this campaign. I'm not so sure this was the best strategy for this particular debate. The idea that this race is for all practical purposes over a full 3 weeks before caucus night is beginning to ware on Iowans. Clinton may have done better to engage on issues, rather than portraying herself as the One to Beat.

Chris Dodd: Dodd is always at his best when talking about the rule of law and restoring the Constitution, and today was no exception. Dodd also scored well in a gutsy pitch for a corporate carbon tax instead of a cap and trade system to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But there wasn't a home run for Chris Dodd today, and that is what he needs absolutely every single time he goes to bat between now and January 3rd. Even then, it may already be too late for Dodd to improve his chances at a respectable showing in the caucuses, and that would be a shame for a candidate who has run a solid, ideas-based campaign.

John Edwards: Today was a missed opportunity for John Edwards. Edwards had a chance to come in to this debate and remind Iowans why it was they catapulted him to national prominence with a second place finish here four years ago. Rather than do that, however, John Edwards treaded water with answers that did little more than rerun lines from his stump speeches. Edwards didn't gain any ground today, which, with the polls showing him in a no-margin-for error dead heat with Clinton and Obama, is as much as to say that he lost ground.

Barack Obama: Today was easily Barack Obama's best debate so far. At a pivotal moment in the campaign, his statement repeating his "fierce urgency of now" case for his candidacy and his description of his plans for his first year in office showed a combination of heart and head that put Barack Obama in his best light. The trick for Obama now is that he must clearly display this combination again and again between now and caucus night to pull supporters away from the other established front runners. Obama's off-the-cuff remark about looking forward to receiving Hillary Clinton's advice when he is president was also 100% pitch perfect. It's hard to imagine Barack Obama performing any better than he did at this debate.

Bill Richardson: Amiable, unpretentious in spite of his accomplishments, and likeable, Bill Richardson nonetheless came into this debate an undeniably deflated candidate. Once showing potential to actually crack into the polling territory inhabited by Clinton, Edwards and Obama, Richardson appears to have peaked in mid summer and has been steadily losing ground ever since. Lacking energy, let alone any memorable lines, and seemingly unable to close the sale with Iowa voters, Bill Richardson did nothing to halt his slide in today's debate. You can practically hear the air seeping out of his candidacy.

New ARG Iowa Poll: Richardson Dropping Like a Stone

Days Until Bush Leaves Office = 416

American Research Group is out with a new Iowa poll this morning that vividly illustrates how fluid the Democratic nomination race in Iowa is now that we're heading into the home stretch.

Of particular interest are the numbers for Bill Richardson. In the previous ARG Iowa survey, conducted November 10-14, Richardson was at 12%; in this latest poll, conducted between November 26-29, Richardson now has the support of just 4% of "Likely Democratic Caucus Goers." No, this is not a typo: Richardson's actual poll result is 4%. If accurate, this poll shows a dramatic collapse of Richardson's backing, with two out of three of the New Mexico Governor's supporters deserting him for other candidates.

Predictably, much of Richardson's lost support has accreted to the top tier, judging by the fact that Obama's support jumped 6 points and Edwards increased by 3 points. But the other surprise in these numbers is Joe Biden increasing from 5% to 8%, his first significant move in months. This is what every candidate prays for going into the climactic phase of the campaign in Iowa: a late surge. If Biden can hold these gains, and then build his numbers into double digits, he stands a serious chance of dramatically exceeding expectations on caucus night.

Overall results:

Nov 10-14 Nov 26-29
Biden 5% 8%
Clinton 27% 25%
Dodd 3% 3%
Edwards 20% 23%
Gravel - -
Kucinich 2% 2%
Obama 21% 27%
Richardson 12% 4%
Undecided 10% 8%

Other highlights:

* 33% of likely caucus participants are undecided (8%) or say that they could switch candidates between now and January 3 (25%).
* 80% of those saying they support Clinton say their support is definite.
* 57% of those saying they support Edwards say their support is definite.
* 75% of those saying they support Obama say their support is definite.
* Among men, Clinton is at 22%, Edwards 22%, and Obama 30%.
* Among women, Clinton is at 28%, Edwards 24%, and Obama 25%.

The soft support number shown for John Edwards is further bad news for his campaign, with 43% of his supporters indicating that they may still end up supporting someone else; this is worrying news for Edwards, even with the 3% gain noted above. Look for John Edwards to continue to weaken over the next few weeks.

Some facts about the poll's methodology:

Sample Size: 600 completed telephone interviews among a random sample of likely Democratic caucus goers living in Iowa (536 Democrats and 64 no party (independent) voters).

Sample Dates: November 26-29, 2007

Margin of Error: ± 4 percentage points, 95% of the time, on questions where opinion is evenly split.

Incidence of Likely Democratic Caucus Participation: 10.5% of Democratic and no party voters.

Question Wording:

If the 2008 Democratic presidential caucus were being held today between (names rotated) Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Christopher Dodd, John Edwards, Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich, Barack Obama, and Bill Richardson, for whom would you vote?

Would you say that you definitely plan to participate in the 2008 Democratic presidential caucus, that you might participate in the 2008 Democratic presidential caucus, or that you will probably not participate in the 2008 Democratic presidential caucus?

New Richardson Ad: "Bold Plan"

Days Until Bush Leaves Office = 419

Bill Richardson has put up a new ad in Iowa. The 30 second spot, titled "Bold Plan," is themed around Richardson's education proposals.

Unlike many of his previous ads, in this new spot Bill Richardson does not address viewers directly. The new ad features a professional narrator and gaggles of cute, smart, happy public school students and their dedicated, competent teachers and administrators, all hard at work and occasionally interacting with the candidate. Here's the video:



The ad was produced by Steve Murphy and Mark Putnam of Murphy Putnam Media.

Thanksgiving Messages from the Candidates

Days Until Bush Leaves Office = 425

For those giving thanks that there are still (or only!) 42 days left before the caucuses, and that New Hampshire has finally settled on a date for its primary, the candidates evidently want to make sure that you know you - and your vote - are not forgotten just because today's a holiday. In that spirit, here are Thanksgiving messages from the Democratic field.

Joe Biden

Have a Safe and Happy Thanksgiving

This Thanksgiving, the Bidens are celebrating a little bit differently than usual. My family and I will be in Des Moines celebrating our favorite American holiday. We're still grateful for the same things -- the health of our loved ones, the blessings of liberty. But this year we are keeping faith with our mission to spread our campaign gospel all across the Hawkeye state.

The spirit of Thanksgiving rests in our recognizing the blessings in our lives, and as we all take stock, I hope you will join me in expressing sincerest thanks to our soldiers serving in harm's way in Iraq, Afghanistan, and around the world. May God bless you on this day of thanks, and may God protect our troops.

Joe Biden

Hillary Clinton

I hope that you and your family have a wonderful Thanksgiving. I love this holiday, and celebrating together with family and friends.
Thanksgiving is also a time to think of those in need. Every year I am inspired by the outpouring of generosity from all over the country.http://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gif I hope that this year you'll share in that tradition, whether you volunteer your time or make a donation to help others.
At our campaign offices in California, Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina as well as our headquarters in Arlington, Virginia, we're accepting donations of nonperishable food to help local efforts to fight hunger. If you're not near one of our offices in those states and would still like to give back this Thanksgiving, here are a few national organizations with information about how you can help.
America's Second Harvest
1 800 Volunteer
End Hunger Network
Hunger Free America
This year, I'm so thankful to have you with me working for change. From my family to yours, have a very happy Thanksgiving.

Chris Dodd

DES MOINES – In the spirit of Thanksgiving, Presidential Candidate Chris Dodd, his family, and his staff today expressed heartfelt gratitude for the hospitality and support they have received across the state of Iowa. Dodd and his family, who recently relocated to Des Moines, are spending Thanksgiving Day with a family in Monticello.

Dodd issued the following statement of thanks:

“As families gather across the state of Iowa and the country on this Thanksgiving Day, I take a moment to remember how much I have to be grateful for. I want to express my sincere thanks for the following, all of which have made my experience in the Hawkeye State deeply enriching and inspiring:

My wife, Jackie, my two daughters, Grace and Christina, and my numerous other family members and friends who have offered their support every step of the way.

The people of Iowa, who have so graciously welcomed Jackie, the girls and me into their neighborhoods, homes, and schools so that we can be together.

The young servicemen and women from Iowa and across the nation, who sacrifice so much in order for us to gather safety and soundly in our homes on days like today.

The fire fighters and first responders in Iowa and elsewhere, who each and every day risk their lives for others.

Iowa's strong and dedicated Democrats, who are making a difference in this state from the local level all the way up to the State House and the Governor's Office.

The caucus process, for representing democracy at its very core, and for going above the power of money and celebrity in order to let each candidate be heard.

Our county chairs across Iowa who have worked tirelessly to reach out to caucus-goers, and share my passion for getting our country back on track.

The simple pleasures of life - coffee at the Ritual Café in Des Moines, the scenic beauty of Decorah in the fall and the Loess Hills at sunset, the stacked shelves at Prairie Lights bookstore in Iowa City, and the loose meat sandwiches at the Canteen in Ottumwa.”

John Edwards

At this time of year, it is very important that we take a moment and give thanks for all we have and all that is around us.

We are grateful to be spending this Thanksgiving with our family. We set aside this day to give thanks for all of our blessings - and for the time we have together. We are grateful for our family, our friends and to live in this great country.

Over the past few years, we have been blessed to have built friendships with so many wonderful Iowans. We wish you and your family a joyful Thanksgiving and hope you have the opportunity to treasure this day with those you love.

With warmest holiday wishes,

-John and Elizabeth Edwards

Barack Obama

"On this Thanksgiving, as we spend time with our family and friends, let's all reflect on what we're thankful for in our own lives. And let's remember those who cannot be with their loved ones because they're serving overseas. But let's also do our part to help those who have no place to go for a meal. Amid reports that more and more Americans are visiting food pantries at a time when those same pantries are less and less able to help them, I will be volunteering this week at the New Horizons food pantry in Manchester, New Hampshire. And I encourage all Americans to do what they can to help those in need -- because the best way to show our gratitude for what we have is by doing our part for those who have less."

Bill Richardson

"As we gather with our families this holiday, let us remember the troops serving abroad who cannot be with theirs. The military men and women risking their lives in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere around the world reflect the best that America has to offer. We are all truly grateful for their courageous service."

"And as we gather in our homes, let us remember also our veterans here who have no home to go to. One in four homeless on our streets is a veteran, and tragically, a wave of homeless vets from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars are expected in the coming years. We must act now to stop this. We must give these men and women the care, support, and respect that they have earned and deserve. We must do better by them."

And finally, from me, here's wishing you a day of thanks filled with the love of your family, friends, and neighbors. And, while you're on line, you might want to visit The Hunger Site, where a click of the mouse turns into a free donation of food for those in need.

Enjoy every bit of today.

Las Vegas Debate: Virtual Spin Room

Days Until Bush Leaves Office = 430

[Updated with new content from the Biden campaign]

The morning after the debate in Las Vegas, Nevada, there is an almost eerie silence from some of the candidates. Usually, all of the campaigns waste no time in releasing statements arguing that their candidate wiped the floor with the others, but as of 8:00 CST this morning, only Clinton, Dodd and Richardson have shown up in my in box and/or issued statements on their campaign websites. Below are the statements made as of this initial posting; I will include updates if/when additional candidate statements are issued throughout the day.

Joe Biden

Following the adage that a picture is worth a thousand words, Joe Biden's campaign has posted a spin video which, in a clever twist, lets the other candidates do the talking for them:




Hillary Clinton

Clinton Midwest Co-Chair and Former Iowa Attorney General Bonnie Campbell’s Statement on Tonight’s Debate

“Hillary Clinton was the clear winner of tonight’s debate. While her opponents stumbled over tough questions, and took pages from the Republican playbook of attack politics, she focused on her positive vision for change,” said Bonnie Campbell. “Time and time again, she took questions on tough issues from health care to immigration to protecting national security, and each time she showed her strength and experience. This debate demonstrated what so many Iowans already know — Hillary Clinton is a strong leader who will turn America around and restore its standing in the world.”

Chris Dodd

DODD’S RECORD OF RESULTS, BRINGING PEOPLE TOGETHER STANDS OUT AT DEBATE

Experience, Leadership, Honesty Prove Dodd is Most Qualified, Electable Candidate

LAS VEGAS, NV – At tonight’s debate at the University of Nevada in Las Vegas, Presidential candidate Chris Dodd demonstrated his ability to lead and stood out as the most qualified and experienced candidate in the field. Dodd explained strongly and clearly his views and ideas on the issues most pressing to Nevadans and Americans such as immigration, education issues, and national security.

Dodd, who learned Spanish while in the Peace Corps in the Dominican Republic, spoke in Spanish while answering a question about whether or not he believes fighting terrorism and slowing the flow of illegal immigration coming from our southern border as intrinsically related issues.

“When you take the oath of office, you don’t swear to (only) uphold the Constitution or (only) protect the country. I believe by upholding our rights, we do protect the country. And the Administration has taken the opposite view. They are posing to us the false choice, the dichotomy that to be safer, we have to give up rights. I think that is so fundamentally flawed and fundamentally dangerous for the United States of America to embrace that idea,” Dodd said.

Highlighting his 26 years of work on children’s and education issues, including being named the Head Start Senator of the Decade, authoring legislation dealing with after-school programs, newborn screening, Autism awareness and founding the Children’s Caucus, Senator Dodd explained his position on merit pay for teachers, pointing to the way teachers should be judged at “excelling.”

“If you define excelling by teachers who will go into rural or poor, urban areas and make a difference, mentor children after school, put in extra time to make a difference, then I think that sort of merit pay has value,” said Dodd. “If you're judging excelling by determining whether or not that teacher has students who do better because they're in better neighborhoods or better schools, I'm totally opposed to that. We spend less than 5 percent of the national budget on elementary and secondary education. We need to fundamentally reform No Child Left Behind. No Child Left Behind is a disaster for most schools and most teachers. I've dedicated a good part of my public career to children and to education -- one-quarter of the population, but truly, 100 percent of our future. This is an issue that deserves far more attention.”

Dodd also emphasized the importance of choosing a candidate who is attractive to Democrats and represents the issues important to them, and who can win against the Republicans next November.

“There's a shrillness to the debate,” Dodd said. “The American people want results, they want the job done. But when people get up in the morning and go to work, they sit around and they worry about their jobs, their retirement, their healthcare, their kids' education, and they wonder if anybody in Washington is paying any attention to them and whether or not the job is being done on their behalf. And, frankly, when a campaign is about turning up the heat or who's angrier or who's yelling louder, the American people turn off. They want us to come together. They want a president that can lead the country. We want a Democratic candidate who can unite our party.”

“Chris Dodd was by far the most Presidential candidate on stage tonight,” said Nevada State Senator and Dodd supporter John Lee. “His long track record of getting results for the American people on everything from health care to workers' rights to the economy showed that he is ready to lead and, in fact, is already leading on every major issue of our day. I am confident that come caucus night, Nevadans will support the candidate that is best for our state and best for our country. That candidate is undoubtedly Chris Dodd.”

Also, here's the ever-popular and eminently useful "Dodd Clock":



Bill Richardson

Governor Richardson Demonstrates Bold Leadership at CNN Debate in Nevada

Richardson has strong performance on day he is nominated for fifth time for Nobel Peace Prize

LAS VEGAS, NV-- On his birthday and the day he was nominated for a fifth time for the Nobel Peace Prize, New Mexico Governor and Democratic Presidential candidate Bill Richardson established himself as the most experienced candidate at the CNN/Nevada Democratic Party Presidential Debate tonight.

Amid rising negativity on the campaign trail, Richardson asked his fellow candidates to stop the personal attacks and focus on the issues.

"You know, it seems that John wants to start a class war," Richardson said. "It seems that Barack wants to start a generational war. It seems that Senator Clinton, with all due respect on her plan on Iraq, does not have a plan to end the war. All I want to do is give peace a chance. I say that because these are the fundamental issues. Do our plans end the war? Do our plans make America energy independent? Do our plans give health care to every American? Are we creating jobs and economic growth? Are we resolving the real problems affecting this country? Let us stop this mudslinging. Let us stop going after one another on character and trust. Let us debate the issues that affect the American people, and let us be positive."

As the only major Democratic Presidential candidate to commit to getting all of our troops out of Iraq, Richardson dominated the discussion on the Iraq war.

"We should not be talking about body counts," Richardson said. "One American death is too many. The surge is not working. There is now less of a possibility of a political solution. Three out of the 18 benchmarks of the General Accounting Office have been fulfilled. Even for Republican math, that is a failing grade. The Iraqi people now say that it is okay to shoot an American soldier. Our troops are dying. Unlike my colleagues, my plan does not leave any forces behind. We should not just wave goodbye; we need a U.S.-led political compromise. The Sunni, Shia, and Kurds should share power and oil revenues. The European Union and rich Arab states should contribute to the reconstruction of Iraq. We have spent $500 billion on this war. Instead, this money should be used in America for health care, education, and on kids.

"I would pull out all of the contractors. I would get all of them out, just like I would get all of our troops out, including residual forces. I would do it within a year. What I believe we need to do is to reform our military. I would increase military pay, educational benefits, and create a new G.I. Bill for our military. With regard to our veterans and military families, I would have a Heroes Health Card for every military person in this country. That would mean that they could get health care, not just at the VA system, but anywhere they want. I would fully guarantee funding at the VA. Most importantly, the big challenge is mental health. We do not treat mental health with the parity that it deserves. For our troops coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan, there is a huge mental trauma burden. Our VA and mental health systems do not give veterans the coverage they deserve."

Richardson's strong debate performance illustrated that he is the candidate who best represents experience and change.

"Tonight, we have talked about Iran, we have talked about Iraq, and we have talked about regimes that have not been friendly," Richardson said. "My policy would be diplomacy through negotiation. We would not be the world's policeman, but rather the world's conscience. All my life, as Ambassador to the United Nations, as a special envoy, through bipartisan solutions as a Governor, as a Congressman, and as Secretary of Energy, I have brought people together. Specifically on the Middle East, I would have a Middle East peace envoy. This President is the only President who has not had one. I would have protection for the security of Israel and a Palestinian state. I also would look at adjustments to the 1967 borders. I would look at dealing with Jerusalem effectively, efficiently, and fairly on the settlements issue. I would talk to Syria, and I would talk to Iran. That is called leadership and diplomacy. To take these steps, you have to be bold. We are talking about electing a President who will need to repair the enormous damage caused by this administration over the last eight years."

A former Secretary of Energy, Richardson also discussed his bold plan to solve the energy crisis.

"The future is renewable energy," Richardson said. "It is not oil, it is not coal, and it is not nuclear. We need an energy revolution in this country to shift from fossil fuels to renewable sources-- 50% by the year 2020. We need an 80% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions as a mandate. We need to have 30% of our electricity be renewable. It is also going to be the American people sacrificing a little bit when it comes to being part of an energy efficiency revolution."

Richardson proved that his experience as a border Governor has prepared him to achieve comprehensive immigration reform as President.

"I am a Governor-- I am in New Mexico, not Washington," Richardson said. "I am the only one who has dealt with the immigration issue directly. We need to talk about bringing this country together. A dysfunctional relationship exists between the President and Congress-- that needs to be corrected. Two years ago, I was the first Governor to declare a border emergency because the federal government was not doing its job in stopping the flow of drugs and people. We should stop demonizing immigrants. I am against the fence because it will not work. The Congress only funded half of the fence, and it is not American. I would do four things. First, we have to secure the border and double the number of border patrol agents. We need to keep the National Guard there longer and use detection equipment. Second, those that knowingly hire illegal workers should be punished. Third, we should have a relationship, called foreign policy, with Mexico. Mexico is our friend, but we should speak frankly to our friends. It should go something like this-- Mexico, give jobs to your people. At the very least, stop handing out maps on the easiest places to cross. Lastly, we need a legalization plan-- not amnesty, not citizenship, but a path to legalization that involves conditions, including learning English and paying back taxes."

Updated: Caucus Pledge Targets Out-of-State Campaign Volunteers, Staff

Days Until Bush Leaves Office = 438

[original post updated with response from the Richardson campaign]

Chris Dodd's campaign, alarmed by the reported influx of Clinton supporters from outside Iowa brought in to attend Hillary rallies and activities in advance of Saturday's Jefferson-Jackson Dinner, today sent a pledge to the other Democratic campaigns asking them to commit that "none of their staff or volunteers who have come from out-of-state to work in Iowa will attempt to caucus or be counted as a caucus-goer on January 3rd."

The pledge, while sent by Dodd's Iowa campaign director Julie Andreeff Jensen to her opposite numbers in the Biden, Clinton, Edwards, Obama and Richardson campaigns, is clearly aimed at Clinton. Here's the press release and accompanying pledge:

"On the eve of the Jefferson Jackson Dinner weekend, Presidential candidate Chris Dodd’s Iowa State Director Julie Andreeff Jensen today sent a letter to the State Directors of the other Democratic campaigns in Iowa, calling for each to sign a pledge stating that none of their staff or volunteers who have come from out-of-state to work in Iowa will attempt to caucus or be counted as a caucus-goer on January 3rd.



Reports that some campaigns will have thousands of people flooding into Iowa to fill out crowds at the Iowa Democratic Party’s Jefferson Jackson Dinner highlights the potential for risk to the integrity of the caucus process.



“I’m sure we can all agree that the Iowa caucuses are unique and belong to the people of Iowa. As staff, we are fortunate to be a part of the process but should not interfere with the process itself,” said Andreeff Jensen in the letter. “Therefore, I ask that each of you sign this pledge in good faith on behalf of your campaign to preserve the integrity of the Iowa caucus process and to ensure that caucus night truly reflects the decisions made by Iowans and not people from out-of-state.”



All of the presidential campaigns in 2004 signed a similar pledge. The full text of Andreeff Jensen’s letter and the pledge are copied below.

-30-


November 8, 2007

Dear Colleague –

I am writing to you today on behalf of the Chris Dodd for President Campaign. It has come to my attention that thousands of out-of-state volunteers are coming into Iowa this weekend for the Jefferson Jackson Dinner. This influx of out-of-state volunteers has raised concerns that I am sure we all share leading up to caucus day.

As many of you may remember from the caucuses in 2004, all of the presidential campaigns agreed to sign a pledge to ensure a fair caucus process by prohibiting any staff or out-of-state volunteers from participating in the caucuses.

Therefore, I am making a commitment to you all that Chris Dodd’s campaign pledges that no campaign staff or out-of-state volunteers will caucus or be counted as a caucus goer on January 3rd and I ask that you sign this pledge and do the same.

I’m sure we can all agree that the Iowa caucuses are unique and belong to the people of Iowa. As staff, we are fortunate to be a part of the process but should not interfere with the process itself. Therefore, I ask that each of you sign this pledge in good faith on behalf of your campaign to preserve the integrity of the Iowa caucus process and to ensure that caucus night truly reflects the decisions made by Iowans and not people from out-of-state.

Thank you for your consideration and please feel free to contact me with any questions.

Sincerely,
Julie Andreeff Jensen
State Director
Chris Dodd for President





To ensure that caucus night truly reflects the decisions made by Iowans and not people from out-of-state;

WE THE UNDERSIGNED CAMPAIGNS, to ensure a fair caucus process AND MAINTAIN THE INTEGRITY OF IOWA’S FIRST IN THE NATION CAUCUS, pledge that no campaign staff or out-of-state volunteers will be allowed to caucus or be counted as a caucus-goer on January 3rd.


Julie Andreeff Jensen

Paul Tewes, Obama Campaign

Teresa Vilmain, Clinton Campaign

Danny O’Brien, Biden Campaign

Jennifer O’Malley, Dillon Edwards Campaign

Rob Becker, Richardson Campaign"

UPDATE
Shortly after the Dodd campaign sent out its press release quoted above, the Bill Richardson campaign fired back:

RichardsonIowaCaucus Director Blasts Dodd Proposal to Disenfranchise Iowans from Caucus

DES MOINES, IA--- Shari Fitzgerald, Presidential Candidate Bill Richardson’s Iowa Caucus Director, today issued the following statement:

“I have participated in every Presidential caucus since 1972 and refuse to be bound not to caucus for the candidate of my choice by any candidate or their campaign—ever. I am an Iowan and it is not just my right, but my duty as a citizen to participate in my caucus. It is unfair to try to disenfranchise any Iowan from this critical process.”

###

I get the Richardson campaign's point: the actual text of the pledge makes no distinction among campaign staff who are Iowa residents and those who came to the state expressly to work on the campaign. This appears at variance with the statement from Dodd's state director announcing the pledge:

statement:

"sign a pledge stating that none of their staff or volunteers who have come from out-of-state to work in Iowa will attempt to caucus or be counted as a caucus-goer on January 3rd." (emphasis added)

pledge:

"pledge that no campaign staff or out-of-state volunteers will be allowed to caucus or be counted as a caucus-goer on January 3rd." (emphasis added)

The difference is subtle, amounting almost to hair-splitting. But politics being what it is, the moreso in the climactic phase of this year's crucial race here in Iowa, it isn't surprising that opponents seeing such seemingly small distinctions are inclined to smell a rat; this is true even when, as I believe to be the case here, there really isn't one.

New Richardson Ad: "When I Began"

Days Until Bush Leaves Office = 447

Bill Richardson is running a new ad in Iowa starting today. Titled, "When I Began," the ad features Richardson speaking directly into the camera and discussing his character, experience and his goals.

Here's the script for the ad:

“I’m Bill Richardson … and when I began this campaign for president, I wasn’t sure what to expect. I knew I wouldn’t have every answer … but I’ll always tell you what I really believe. And I’ll never mislead you.

I knew there’d be differences between the candidates. Especially on Iraq. I’ll get
every soldier out. You can’t say you’ll end the war if you plan to leave thousands
of troops behind. The Iraqis sure won’t think the war is over.

And when I began this campaign, I knew we had to get rid of No Child Left Behind,
reverse global warming, and cover every American with health insurance.

If you’re wondering if anyone can really do all this … just look at what I’ve done
in my life and how I’ve done it. Not by dividing people. But by earning their trust. And that’s really where we need to begin in Iraq. There is a way out.

I approved this message because I’m sure not the best looking or the flashiest … but
I know who I am. And I know how hard I’ll work for you.”

And the ad itself:

Candidate Reactions to CHIP Override Vote

Days Until Bush Leaves Office = 460

Joe Biden: “I am deeply disappointed first that the President chose to veto this crucial legislation and second, that the House failed to override his veto. Every single child in this country should have health insurance. Instead of making progress toward this goal, the President and Republicans in the House are turning their backs on 9 million children.”

“Despite this blow, I am committed to continue working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle until our kids have the health coverage they need and deserve.”

Hillary Clinton: “It is deeply disappointing that a small minority of Republicans in Congress have put loyalty to this president ahead of healthcare for millions of children. But we will not give up until a bill becomes law. I will keep fighting to enact a bipartisan bill that provides affordable coverage to America’s children.”

Chris Dodd: “Today's vote in the House to uphold the President's shameful veto of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) is yet another reminder of the consequences of disastrous priorities on the part of this White House. With the resources it takes to execute just over three months of the Iraq War, we could fully fund the expansion of health care for needy children that Bush vetoed."

John Edwards: "Today is another sad example of how broken Washington is. Instead of standing up for children and health care, House Republicans have decided to stand up for special interests and lobbyists. From this day forward, House Republicans are on notice. When I am the Democratic nominee, the days of Republican members who voted against children's health care will be numbered. We are taking names and, together, as one party, we will campaign against them."

"Sadly, there is strong message here for Democrats and Republicans. We should never have to consider selling out to lobbyists when it comes to the health of our kids. If universal health care is ever going to be more than a dream, we need to do more than change the president. We need to elect strong Democratic majorities in the House and Senate with the backbone to stand up to the big insurance and drug companies that are going to do everything they can to block universal health care. We need a strong ticket from top to bottom that will compete and win everywhere in America.

"And, when I am the Democratic nominee, we will not only win the White House, we will make every Republican who stands against children's health care pay the price."

Barack Obama: "Four million American children were denied basic health coverage today because Washington politicians failed to stand up to this President’s disgraceful veto. At a time when we’re spending billions of dollars on a war that never should’ve been authorized and giving billions in tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans, Washington’s failure shows a callousness of priorities that is offensive to the ideals we hold as Americans.

When I am President, I will sign a universal health care bill into law by the end of my first term that will cover every American and cut costs more dramatically than any other plan offered by a candidate in this race. And I’ll do it by bringing Republicans and Democrats together, like I did when I expanded health care for an additional 150,000 children and their parents as an Illinois state Senator."

Bill Richardson: "By siding with the President on this failed override vote, 154 Republican members of Congress chose to protect President Bush's misguided view, rather than protect the health of 10 million children nationwide. This President needs to stop playing politics with the lives and health of 20,000 New Mexico children and start supporting this bipartisan legislation, which is the highest health care priority for Governors across the country."

Not-So-Friendly Fire on Iraq

[Updated, with video and a verbatim transcription of the Q&A]

Days Until Bush Leaves Office = 463

While peace on Iraq policy was breaking out in Des Moines Friday between presidential candidates from opposite side of the aisle, a war of words was at the same time erupting between one of those candidates and a rival from his own party.

I'm talking about Joe Biden and Bill Richardson, respectively. Before Biden even walked into the room to appear with Republican Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas on Friday, Bill Richardson issued a statement titled "No Way Forward in Iraq Unless All Troops are Withdrawn," taking aim at the Biden-Brownback-Boxer proposal. Here's an excerpt:

"Senator Biden's plan to leave troops in Iraq means his plan has very little chance to succeed. The parties will not even sit down in a meaningful way until we get all the forces out.

"Senator Biden keeps drawing an analogy to Bosnia, but he has that one backwards: the peacekeepers could only enforce the peace after the deal was made. Using U.S. peacekeepers in Iraq would turn the guarantors into targets, thus plunging any settlement back into war."

Pretty serious stuff, if true, I thought. So in the press conference following the Biden-Brownback joint appearance in Des Moines, I asked Senator Biden about it.

"Senator Biden," I began, "earlier today Governor Richardson issued a statement that I think could be fairly characterized as a point-by-point refutation of your Plan for Iraq. One feature in that release was that you have the Bosnia analogy exactly backwards: that there was peace, and then we brought in U.S. military forces. I would like to have your response to that."

Biden's face momentarily curdled into a grimace. Then he fixed me with an eagle eye and answered, "Very quickly, I wonder what he thought General Clark was doing there."



Ouch! Give that round to Biden.

Afterwards, Biden's communications director, Larry Raske, approached me and said he had seen the Richardson statement, and that the campaign was considering releasing a response later in the day. Sure enough, a couple of hours later came a rocket from the Biden campaign, titled, "Biden Statement on Richardson's Irresponsible Position on Iraq." Here's an excerpt:

“Governor Richardson’s remarks today on my Iraq plan were surprising. First, he was in favor of my plan, now he’s attacking it. First, he said he would take all of our troops out in six months, and now he acknowledges it would take a year. First, he said he would leave residual forces in Iraq, and now he says he wouldn’t. First, he was in favor of diplomacy followed by withdrawal, now he says it’s the other way around. When it comes to the single most important issue facing our country – how to end the war in Iraq responsibly – it is important to be clear and consistent. It is especially important on this issue that there be no gap between what we say as candidates and what we would do as president.

“My plan for Iraq has overwhelming bipartisan support. More and more people acknowledge that while leaving Iraq is necessary, it is not enough. We also have to do everything we can not to leave chaos behind. The only way to do that is through the political solution that I put forward, which has been embraced by the Senate, the Iraqis and the foreign policy community. I suggest that Governor Richardson go back and review his record and statements and reconsider today’s remarks.”

Biden's statement then goes on to exhibit, at some length, what it characterizes as Bill Richardson's inconsistent statements about Iraq in general, and Biden's proposals in particular. Probably the most damning part of the Biden campaign's statement is this quote:

February 2003: Richardson Said he Would Have Voted to Authorize War In Iraq. Richardson said, “My view is that it is critically important that the United States not let Saddam Hussein get away with this. Had I have been in the Congress I would have voted for the military resolution authorizing war.” [CNN, Larry Kind [sic] Live, 2/14/03, emphasis added]

The Richardson campaign's response to this was a further press release about an hour later. Rather than taking up the gauntlet on Iraq, this release was titled, "Poll: Biden not top presidential choice in Delaware." The point seemed to be that although 54% of Delaware Democrats think Joe Biden would make a good president, they think Hillary Clinton will eventually be nominated, and that this should be interpreted as a strike against Biden.

I take all this back and forth to indicate several things. First, in starting this dust up with Biden, a candidate ranked below him in both polling and fundraising, Richardson's campaign is either a) shooting in the wrong direction, when by all accounts they should be focusing on overtaking an increasingly vulnerable John Edwards, or b) they're feeling heat from Joe Biden on the key issue of this campaign, and one Richardson has increasingly come to feel that he should own: Iraq. The "All Troops Out Now" policy Richardson has been espousing was supposed to lock up the anti-war netroots voice of the blogosphere with one simple - or perhaps, merely simplified - idea, and that would in turn resonate out to primary voters in general. But Richardson's policy has gotten little traction in recent polls, and the Senate's recent overwhelming passage of Biden's proposal highlights a vulnerability on Iraq that Richardson would plainly prefer didn't exist.

Second, this shows how Joe Biden has come to dominate the discussion on Iraq. Many observers feel that after the Dartmouth debate, Clinton, Obama and Edwards have all been neutralized on this issue, and the second-tier candidates are battling for advantage in light of that development. But Biden's policy proposals on Iraq have been a matter of public record for more than a year, and it's going to be hard to dislodge him from the driver's seat.

Lastly, I think we're going to start seeing a lot more of these types of sharpened exchanges from now until the nomination is decided. The "get to know me" phase of the race is clearly over now, and the campaigns are beginning to draw sharp distinctions between themselves and their competitors. I'd like to think that this will not, in turn, lead to a spate of negative personal attacks between the candidates, but who wants odds?

The weekend has passed without further skirmishes between Richardson and Biden, so we'll see whether the cease-fire extends into this week, or if things only heat up again. Time, and the in-box, will tell.

Richardson's South Carolina Co-Chair Quits Campaign, Endorses Biden

Days Until Bush Leaves Office = 471

This week was meant to have been a good one for Bill Richardson. Following last week's introduction of a netroots-centric ad praising his position on Iraq, the New Mexico governor and presidential candidate announced a successful fundraising result for the quarter ending September 30 and delivered a major policy address on Iraq and modernizing America's military forces, making a strong push for his idea that the Iraq war will not, and cannot, be ended until every last American soldier has left the country. Richardson also announced an expansion of his campaign staff in Iowa, and a spate of new endorsements from activists, union officials and tribal leaders in various parts of the country, and started efforts to boost his presence in the South, addressing the Georgia Legislative Black Caucus and launching an Atlanta chapter of his "Mi Familia con Richardson" booster club.

Then came news today that Richardson's campaign co-chair in South Carolina, State Representative Fletcher Smith, has resigned from the campaign and switched his endorsement to Richardson's rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, Delaware senator Joe Biden. Bad enough for Richardson, but worse still was the reason Smith gave for the switch: doubts about Richardson's Iraq policy.

“For me, it comes down to who is best equipped to deal with the war in Iraq. And, over the last few weeks, it has become clear to me that Joe Biden is the only candidate with the ideas, leadership and experience to get us out of Iraq without leaving chaos behind,” Smith was quoted as saying in a press release issued by the Biden campaign earlier today. “I’ve had several members of my family, from my grandfather down to two of my siblings, serve proudly in our nation’s military so it’s especially important to me that we end this war in a way that keeps our troops safe and does not require us to send them back in the months or years ahead. I believe that only by adopting Biden’s comprehensive plan for a federalized Iraq will we truly be able to do this and reduce the overall threat to our country.”

“I appreciate how difficult this decision was for State Representative Smith and am honored to receive his support,” Biden was quoted as saying in the same press release. “I look forward to working with him in the coming months and to meeting South Carolinians and discussing with them my plan to make America stronger and more secure after years of President Bush’s failed policies.”

Representatives of Richardson's campaign could not be reached for comment.

State Representative Smith himself isn't an especially high profile figure in the overall scheme of things; it isn't as if, say, Tom Vilsak suddenly bolted the Clinton campaign and pledged allegiance to Mike Gravel. But it is certainly news whenever a high-ranking campaign official in an early primary state switches sides, and there is no doubt that this is as much an embarrassment for Bill Richardson as it is a coup for Joe Biden.

But beyond the "in your face" element of this, what will Fletcher Smith's decision mean for Biden's prospects in South Carolina, or Bill Richardson's, for that matter? Probably not a great deal. Both candidates already had their share of endorsements from current and former elected officials in South Carolina, and Smith's defection would seemingly do little to shake up the contest there. Polling on the South Carolina Democratic primary consistently shows Hillary Clinton far ahead of all challengers there; Richardson is in the low single digits, and Biden polls lower still. But, in the run-up to actual balloting, a smart campaign can use events like this to shape opinion, so we'll have to wait and see what the Biden campaign's actual mileage from this turns out to be.

In the meantime, this probably doesn't turn a good week for Richardson into a bad week. But it does end it on a sour note.

Reactions to President Bush's CHIP Veto

Days Until Bush Leaves Office = 475

Candidate Reactions

Joe Biden

With one stroke of his pen, President Bush has denied health insurance to 3.8 million kids who were due to get it under this bipartisan expansion of the Children’s Health Insurance Program. He’s willing to spend billions and billions of dollars in Iraq, but he’s not willing to invest in our kids’ healthcare. It is unconscionable and wrong. Every child in this country should have health insurance. The President’s veto is a tragedy for the millions who don’t.

Hillary Clinton

With the stroke of a pen, President Bush has robbed 10,500 uninsured Iowa children of the chance for a healthy start in life and the health coverage they need but can't afford. These children are invisible to this president, but they aren't invisible to the American people or to the overwhelming bipartisan majority in Congress – and they aren't invisible to me. I was proud to help create the Children's Health Insurance Program during the Clinton Administration, which today provides health insurance for six million children.

Chris Dodd

This President's priorities are unconscionable. With the resources it takes to execute just over 3 months of the Iraq War, we could fully fund the expansion of health care for needy children that Bush vetoed. Indeed, today's veto is another reminder that this war is not only adversely affecting our security but also adversely affecting our other top priorities, and it's time for Congress to do what it must do to end it.

John Edwards

Today, we have witnessed a President that has turned his back on health care for children. Not surprisingly, in George Bush's administration, corporate cronies and insurance industry allies always come first, while children's health care comes last. In an America where nearly 9 million children don't have health coverage, Congress must do what is right and fight for these children and override Bush's cruel veto.

Even more shocking is that Republican Presidential candidates, including Fred Thompson, Rudy Giuliani, John McCain and Mitt Romney are all lining up with President Bush and against health care for our children. Instead of threatening the health care of children, it's time for Bush, and Republicans like McCain, Giuliani, and Romney to start picking on someone their own size

Barack Obama

It is outrageous that the President has decided to use his fourth veto to deny health care to four million American children. At a time when we’re spending billions of dollars on a war that should never have been authorized and giving billions in tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans, today’s veto of this bipartisan plan shows a callousness of priorities that is offensive to the ideals we hold as Americans. But George Bush doesn’t have the last word, and I will keep fighting for the Republican votes needed to override his veto.

As the wealthiest nation on earth, there is no reason we shouldn’t be able to cover every child. As President, I’ll sign a universal health care bill into law by the end of my first term that will cover every American, and cut costs more dramatically than any other plan offered by a candidate in this race. And I’ll do it by bringing Republicans and Democrats together – like I did when I was in the Illinois state Senate, when I helped expand health care for an additional 150,000 children and their parents.

If there’s one thing all of us should be able to agree on, no matter what our political views, it’s that our children should get the treatment they need when they need it. And when I’m president, they will.

Bill Richardson

The Grinch came three months early this year and stole children's health care. Unfortunately, this is no fairy tale, and unless Congress overrides the President's veto, it will not have a happy ending.

President Bush's veto is irresponsible. It is outrageous. It is simply immoral. Of the many shifting rationales the President has offered for vetoing this bill, one is that it will burden private insurance companies. That sums up everything we need to know about this President. Choosing between insurance companies and children should not be hard.

This bill is morally and fiscally responsible. It pays for itself with a cigarette tax right now. It will save us money over the long run by getting poor children the treatment they need when they need it, rather than forcing them into overstrained, costly emergency rooms.

I strongly urge Congress to do the right thing and override the President's veto.

Other Reactions

Tom Harkin

Just two short days after the President declared October 1st Child Health Day and recognized the important role CHIP has played in helping poor children stay healthy, he has decided to turn his back on the health of millions of American kids. The CHIP bill has the overwhelming support of Democrats and Republicans, nurses, doctors, teachers and health insurance companies, for one reason – because it works. Once again, President Bush’s rhetoric fails to match his actions, and this time it is at the expense of children across the nation. I pledge to work with my colleagues in the Senate to continue fighting for working families by overturning this veto.

Ted Kennedy

President Bush and I have one thing in common.

When either of us wants to see a doctor, American taxpayers cover 72% of our health care premiums. And when it comes time to pick a medical facility, either of us can go to a government-run hospital like the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland.

President Bush just vetoed a bill extending and reforming the State Children's Health Insurance Program. So I want to know:

If government-run health care is good enough for me, and is good enough for President Bush, why isn't it good enough for America's children?

Earlier this week, I stood outside the White House with working families to ask that very question -- and we've got it on video. Watch it, and join our effort:

http://www.democraticmajority.org/schip

President Bush says that SCHIP will cost too much.

But for the price of one day in Iraq, we could cover 256,000 children. One week would cover 1.8 million children. And just over one month of the Iraq war would cover the full cost of the bill, insuring more than 10 million children for a whole year.

This is a question of priorities -- and President Bush's priorities obviously don't include the needs of America's children.

There has to be a better way. Health insurance shouldn't be a luxury for the privileged few. It should be a right for all Americans -- especially our children.

As part of Monday's rally, a group of children pulling little red wagons was at the gates of the White House to urge the President to sign the bill. Please watch my video from the rally, and show your support for SCHIP:

http://www.democraticmajority.org/schip

When my son lost his leg to cancer as a child, my family didn't have to worry about getting him the best possible care. But in the hospital waiting rooms, we saw family after family -- middle class families -- driven into poverty because of their children's medical bills.

So I ask President Bush and the Members of Congress who support his veto:

Would you deny your own family what you'll be denying millions of other families if this bill is vetoed?

If you don't believe the federal government should support children's health care, how can you in good conscience accept it for your own families?

We can be a voice for the nation's children -- a voice that every member of Congress needs to hear. If government-supported health care is good enough for Congress, it's good enough for America's children. Show your support for SCHIP today:

http://www.democraticmajority.org/schip

Finally, Moveon is organizing a protest rally against the veto tomorrow in downtown Des Moines.
Where: In front of the federal building downtown
210 Walnut Street
Des Moines, Iowa, 50309
When: Thursday, Oct 4 2007, 5:00 PM

View Larger Map
Click here to RSVP:
http://pol.moveon.org/event/events/event.html?event_id=40945&&id=11324-8047930-rVe8.X&t=3

Maybe You Should Drive

Days Until Bush Leaves Office = 482

So, let's say you're a blogger. And let's say a presidential campaign calls you up one day because they've been reading your stuff, and they note that you've run some posts that, if not exactly endorsements of their candidate, more or less concur with them on some point of policy - like Iraq, for instance. And then let's say they ask you if you'd be interested in appearing in a campaign ad for their guy to talk about it.

Would you do it?

Of course you would. Like, duh. Adding our voices to the din and exerting influence in the political process is why most of us took the leap into the vast echo chamber of the blogosphere in the first place. To be individually recognized, even lauded, by one of the very campaigns you've been covering, on top of that is just gravy, no matter how many, or few, hits your site gets. No way you could pass it up.

Throw in a healthy slap at the mainstream media by way of introduction, and you've got an ad that practically writes itself.

That's pretty much he story behind Bill Richardson's new commercial, now playing on YouTube, and, in 30-second form, on televisions in New Hampshire. Featuring bloggers Matt Stoller and Chris Bowers from Open Left.com and Christina Siun O'Connell from Firedoglake.com, Richardson's ad touts his plan for withdrawing all US forces from Iraq and attacks - and that really is the only word that fits - every other Democratic candidate for not taking the same position.

So, okay. There are no easy answers on Iraq, and reasonable people will disagree on what should be done. Try asking two Army generals what they think should be done on Iraq and see what happens.

There’s something admirable about Richardson’s consistency in sticking by his “all troops out now” stance, especially since polling indicates that the percentage of the public who support that approach is roughly equal with the minority at the other extreme who think we should throw ever more troops into the war until we “win.” Those numbers haven’t moved much so far this year, indicating that Richardson’s proposals aren’t really having much impact in framing the Iraq debate. So continuing to hammer away at it regardless either indicates political ineptitude on Richardson's part or demonstrates the courage of his convictions (I'm convinced it is the latter).

But what strikes me most forcibly about Richardson’s ad is not what it says about Richardson’s position on troop redeployment, but its reflection on the electorate at large and its perceived view of the netroots and its role in setting the terms of political discussion this cycle: a mystical beast in an ethereal electronic lair, breathing digital fire upon its enemies and bestowing incalculable binary influence in the form of “buzz” to those who win its favor. The overriding message of the ad is that Richardson's got the internet mojo.

Don’t misunderstand me: in the early going, I believe that we do, in fact, have a material impact on shaping issues that will matter in the election campaign. The question is, in the frenetic campaign for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, what does “early going” really mean?

I would argue that when it comes to promoting issues and setting the terms of discussion in this campaign, we are not now seeing the blazing noon of the period in which we in the netroots exert our disproportionate influence, but rather, are approaching its twilight. Not that we’ve stopped speaking out, and certainly not to say that we in any way should, but we’ve been weighing in on the issues in this campaign, and Iraq in particular, for a long time now. And, as evidenced by Richardson’s ad, among other things, the campaigns certainly have heard us, loud, if not always clear.

But having heard from the netroots, campaign have pretty much “priced in” our voices and formulated their strategies to court or deflect them, and are starting to move on. Does this mean that we’ve entered a static period in which candidates’ attitudes vis-à-vis the political blogosphere will remain more or less the same, come what may? No. The netroots will continue to exert influence, continue to call candidates to account where we think they fall short, and continue to work hard to drum up support for whichever candidate we individually decide merits our favor. And that will continue to register on candidates and their campaigns. But will we see a decline in how far our reach extends in shaping the political discussion and driving candidates to respond to us throughout the rest of the primary season? Yes. There are other fish in the electoral sea: PACs, “traditional” interest groups like the NAACP, AMA and ABA, advocacy groups, and, let’s not forget, labor unions. Each of these will only grow in importance as the campaign evolves, and, like it or not, will increasingly dilute the influence of the netroots the closer to a conclusion this campaign comes. It’s not that these groups are the enemies of the netroots; rather, and by nature, we do different things. Where we mobilize opinion, they mobilize the donors who finance campaigns and armies of volunteers who knock on doors, man phone banks, lick envelopes, and do the thousand other things that must be done to reach the constituency wielding the ultimate say in the election’s outcome: the voters themselves.

“The ad demonstrates how important the netroots community is to the political dialogue,” Richardson’s National Press Secretary Tom Reynolds told the New York Times today. “Obviously our campaign recognizes their power in communicating a message.” True enough. But in politics, as in so much of life, timing is everything, and Richardson’s ad, far from cresting the netroots wave, catches it just as its moment of decisive advantage in this campaign is beginning to decline.

Odds & Ends

Days Until Bush Leaves Office = 489

Just a couple of paper bullets from the brain while I'm thinking of them.

1: You Know You're the Front Runner When...

As everybody knows by now, Hillary Clinton put out the final piece of her health care plan here in Des Moines yesterday. No sooner had the words, 'health care' left Senator Clinton's mouth than the reactions from the rest of the Democratic field began to pile up in my in box:

Chris Dodd had this to say:

"While she talks about the political scars she bears, the personal scars borne by the American people are far greater. The mismanagement of the effort in 1993 and 1994 has set back our ability to move toward universal health care immeasurably.

"We've known what the problems have been for nearly 15 years, and what the solutions could be. What's been missing is leadership that knows how to bring people together and get the job done.

"To ensure all Americans have affordable health care will take more than leadership that simply knows how to fight - it will take leadership that knows how to bring people together and win."

Here is part of John Edwards' lengthy statement:

"I'm glad that, today, the architect of the 1993 plan has another care proposal - and if imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, then I'm flattered.

"But unless Senator Clinton's willing to acknowledge the truth about our broken government and the cost of health care reform, I'm afraid flattery will get us nowhere.

"The lesson Senator Clinton seems to have learned from her experience with health care is, 'If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.'"

Barack Obama chimed in with:

"I commend Senator Clinton for her health care proposal. It's similar to the one I put forth last spring, though my universal health care plan would go further in reducing the punishing cost of health care than any other proposal that's been offered in this campaign. But the real key to passing any health care reform is the ability to bring people together in an open, transparent process that builds a broad consensus for change. That's how I was able to pass health care reform in Illinois that covered an additional 150,000 children and their parents, and that's how we'll prevent the drug and insurance industry from defeating our reform efforts like they did in 1994."

Bill Richardson's statement was in a similar vein:

"Health care affects the people of this country more directly than any other issue in this campaign, and I am pleased that Senator Clinton finally has joined the debate," Governor Richardson said. "I also am proud to see that she supports most of the initiatives I have outlined in my comprehensive proposal."

You've gotta love being Hillary Clinton - in statements regarding the same speech, she's snarkily "welcomed" to the health care debate, praised by her opponants for mirroring their own proposals, and castigated by them for her record on the issue.

And that's how you know you're the front runner.


2: Habeas Corpus

Of more urgent note this week, the Senate is due to vote on a measure to restore Habeas Corpus tomorrow. Habeas Corpus is the simple, basic right for anyone accused of a crime to appear before an impartial court and demand their accusers produce compelling evidence to back up the charges made against them. It is a cornerstone of liberty, and was severely weakened just before last November's elections with the passage of the Military Commissions Act of 2006.

A bill to restore the right of habeas corpus by repealing parts of the Military Commissions Act is now pending in the Senate. Predictably, Republican senators opposed to this bill are threatening a filibuster to prevent what they are otherwise fond of referring to as a "straight up or down vote" that would likely see the bill pass.

In the decisive final hours before the scheduled vote in the Senate, Chris Dodd is spearheading a drive for public pressure on senators who either oppose the bill or have not yet stated their support. If you care at all about civil liberties, or America's moral standing in the world, or upholding human rights in places like Guantanamo, or just want to take back part of your birthright as an American, you should take a moment right now to click over to the Restore Habeas Corpus site and find out how you can help.

A relentless devotion to the Constitution, as evidenced once again by this latest initiative, is the principal thing that makes Chris Dodd worth listening to in a field crowded with better-known candidates. He's got my wholehearted support on this bill.


3: Apparently, There Are Twenty "Top" Iowa Caucus Counties. Do You Live in One of Them?

And finally, tonight, more from Chris Dodd, though, unlike the preceding item, not one for the highlight reel. The Dodd campaign issued a news release this afternoon trumpeting "the announcement of County Chairs for the state’s top twenty Democratic caucus counties."

And which Iowa counties made the cut of the top twenty? Glad you asked! In the order listed by he Dodd campaign, they are: Polk, Linn, Scott, Johnson, Blackhawk, Dubuque, Story, Woodbury, Pottawattamie, Clinton, Cerro Gordo, Des Moines, Dallas, Warren, Lee, Muscatine, Marshall, Webster, Wapello and Marion.

So, if you're in one of the 79 Iowa counties not listed, you'll just have to try harder. Also, no mention in the release of whether counties further down the list of twenty would be able to move up in the rankings. But if supporters in, say, Marshall were to bundle together a few tidy contributions for the campaign, I dare say the sky's the limit.

This could open an entire second front in the Leapfrog Wars.

"Yeah, It's That Important"

Days Until Bush Leaves Office = 491

Just a quick note to say I was at the 30th Annual Tom Harkin Steak Fry today. What can I say, but that the folks in Indianola really know how to grill up a steak.

I'll be putting up posts about the goings on over the next day or two; not play-by-play stuff (check out Iowa Independent for Chase and John's coverage), but more like color commentary.

So, was there red meat from the podium? Did the air go out of anyone's balloon today? Did the candidates serve it up bloody or well done? And did anyone figure out what drew all those flies to the press file shed? Check back tomorrow for the answers to those questions and more!

Yes, He Was Joking

Days Until Bush Leaves Office = 504

At a union-sponsored Labor Day picnic today in Sioux City, New Mexico Governor and presidential candidate Bill Richardson told the crowd,

"Iowa, for good reason, for constitutional reasons, for reasons related to the Lord should be the first caucus and primary."

Not that there's anything wrong with the sentiment, of course, but the religious element in the quote struck me as, shall we say, out of character for the candidate. Never fear, though: Richardson's National Press Secretary Tom Reynolds assures me that the Gov was just joking. "But," Reynolds added, "the Governor does believe that Iowa is God's Country."

So, there you go: talk radio scandal averted. That is, until someone in New Mexico hears that God's Country is actually out this way....

The Mailbag, Vol. 2

Days Until Bush Leaves Office = 540

This is a post on some things sent over the transom that caught my eye during the past week, but didn't otherwise make for posts in and of themselves.

YouTube Ripple

No, not the latest flavor at Ben & Jerry's; I'm talking about how campaigns are starting to riff on the CNN/YouTube debate. First, the Richardson campaign kicked off it's own initiative to take questions from voters via video, email or on-line form. In an email announcing what its calling "Ask Bill," Richardson's campaign described it as follows:

"We're going to upend the status quo and skip the media middleman. Direct questions, direct answers. That is the strategy we've been using in living rooms and meeting rooms across the country -- and our rising poll numbers show it's working.

Want to know more about my experience negotiating with the world's toughest dictators? You won't get that answer on the CNN debate -- but you will from "Ask Bill." Want to know my favorite flavor of ice cream? I'll take that question too. ¿Quiere saber cómo aumentaré el sueldo de maestros? Pregúnteme ahora- en inglés o en español- y contestaré en cualquiera."

A few days later, John Kerry weighed in with his own twist on the theme, launching the "Roadblock Republican Radio Contest." An email from Kerry's Senate reelection campaign gave the following details:

"Republicans are feeling the pressure for change on Iraq. But I'm not a patient person. Especially when the lives of our troops are at stake. I refuse to wait around for the Republicans to move without giving them a little more pushing.

Quite simply, we want to take an unusual step - and we want to do it early. I think we need to run radio ads in the states of the Roadblock Republicans, making it crystal clear that they don't deserve to be reelected because of their continued support for the Bush Doctrine of escalation without end. We need to turn up the heat even higher.

It's the pressure of activists and the voice of the people that have gotten us this far in the Iraq debate, not the cookie-cutter ads and thirty second soundbites of Madison Avenue media firms.

So we decided, why don't we let you speak in this radio campaign? If user generated content can change presidential debates, I know it can help change the next election on the most pivotal of issues.

That's why we're running a contest. We want you to send in a script for a 30 second radio spot (that's about 65 words long), we'll whittle it down some to the top 20, and then we'll open up the voting to everyone. The winner that's chosen by the people will be what we air in the states. And we'll fundraise for the airing of that spot, with each of you able to choose with your contribution where you think we should run the ad. No political professionals making the spot, or choosing where to run it. It's all done by you."

All this is a direct result of the buzz from this week's voter-submitted questions in the CNN/YouTube debate. Look for more of this in the coming weeks.

And While You're Asking Richardson...

Chris Dodd's communications director, Hari Savugan, sent me an email last week with a subject line of "FYI - Richardson Admits Flip-Flop on Guns." The email contrasts Richardson's statements during his widely-panned May 27, 2007 appearance on Meet the Press with a story that ran in the Albuquerque Journal July 27. What it boils down to is that, in the wake of the Virginia Tech tragedy earlier this year, Bill Richardson reversed his position on a loophole in current law that allows buyers at gun shows to purchase firearms without passing a background check (Richardson supported the exemption before, and now does not). When I asked how Richardson's current stance on this issue compares to Dodd's, Savugan replied, "Chris Dodd has consitently [sic] favored instant background checks and closing the gun show loophole, whether he's running in a Democratic primary or not." So, while Dodd and Richardson now hold the same position on this issue, Dodd's camp faults Richardson for the switch.

The real story here, to my mind, is not the position on guns, although I think Richardson did the right and responsible thing in switching his position; the switch appears to have been driven by events - not polls, but events - and changing one's views in response to real-world developments is far more virtue than vice (think about the last 4+ years of "staying the course" for perhaps the best lesson here). In my view, Bill Richardson was wrong before, and now he's come down on the right side of this issue. So I'm not really troubled by the flip-flop, if that's what this was.

Rather, I think the real story is that, with a little less than 6 months to go before the caucuses, the sixth-place candidate (Dodd) is taking this kind of shot at the fourth-place candidate (Richardson), rather than one of the top three. As we move into August, the gloves are starting to come off. There's no doubt that Chris Dodd's best hope - perhaps his only hope - of moving up from the bottom of the field is that one or more candidates above him stumbles; but that being the case, I would have thought he would have aimed higher, at Clinton or Obama. Last week would have been a particularly opportune moment for doing so, with the top two contenders embroiled in a war of words between themselves over foreign policy; imagine, then, the impact of a solid shot from Dodd on a domestic issue would have had in opening a second front against the most prominent rivals in the Democratic race. That really might have helped Dodd. As it was, I think his campaign went for the forward pass and wound up not moving the ball at all.

The Candidate Formerly Known as Kucinich

Finally tonight, news from Planet Kucinich. The Kucinich campaign sent around an email on July 22 from campaign manager Make Klein (who took over from David Bright last month), announcing that Kucinich's initial website at http://www.kucinich.us had been scrapped in favor of http://action.dennis4president.com. But neither the hiring of Klein as campaign manager, nor the retooling of Kucinich's website could match the breathtaking impact of the news Klein flashed to supporters in an email dated July 27:

"Last week, Dennis Kucinich launched his presidential campaign with house parties from coast-to-coast, a ground-breaking new website and a historic campaign to change government policy by sending text messages."

Learning that Kucinich had launched his presidential campaign only the previous week must have come as something of a shock to supporters who had been laboring under the misapprehension that the candidate who's campaign now refers to by his first name, rather than his last, had declared himself a candidate back on December 12, 2006 ("I am announcing my candidacy for President of the United States" was the exact quote from the speech - not much ambiguity there, I would have thought). But, now that Mark Klein has declared that the campaign has finally begun, I think we can expect to see signs that the kidding around from Dennis has come to an end. Really. Big things will happen. Naysayers will come crawling to Cleveland for forgiveness. Front-runners will lay down and quit the race. The clouds will part, and angels weep in gratitude at the advent of global justice now.

Or not.