Gaskill Endorsement Makes a Baker's Dozen for Biden

Days Until Bush Leaves Office = 432

Iowa State Representative Mary A. Gaskill of Ottumwa today became the thirteenth Iowa elected official to endorse Joe Biden for president. For those keeping track at home, here's an endorsement scorecard:
Hillary Clinton: 16
Barack Obama: 15
Joe Biden: 13

It's never clear how much weight these types of endorsements carry on caucus night. The potential is certainly there for a candidate to tap into the endorser's network of financial backers, staff and past volunteers to enhance their showing in the caucus, but I suspect this potential is rarely realized to its full extent.

That said, Biden's endorsement tally is impressive nonetheless, and will come as something of a shock to those who believe poll numbers and fundraising totals tell the whole story in the Iowa race. Few would be surprised to learn that Hillary or Obama have enlisted the support of a good number of elected officials here, but finding that Joe Biden is right on their heels in that category is something few would have predicted six or nine months ago. So Biden's endorsements raise a question, one that has gone largely overlooked so far: why is it that Joe Biden is garnering so much support among Iowa elected officials? Put another way, what do they know that so many others appear to not know, or at least to not notice?

Support for Biden's policy proposals, particularly with regard to Iraq, and appreciation for his experience in the the U.S. Senate have a lot to do with it, based on the statements issued by the legislators who have endorsed Biden so far. But there must be something more, and here's my take on what that might be: Iowa legislators know what it takes to win in Iowa, and they see a winner in Joe Biden. Saying that candidates with the celebrity status and bank accounts of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are solid bets to do well in Iowa is a no-brainer. But to say that Joe Biden, with none of the name recognition or financial advantages of Clinton and Obama, has the same winning potential, which is the message these endorsements carry, requires either a deep understanding of the dynamics of this race in Iowa and what it takes to do well here, or, frankly, a total and utter departure from reality. Since these legislators got to be legislators by winning elections in Iowa, the evidence is heavily in favor of the former explanation, rather than the latter.

Here's the press release announcing Gaskill's endorsement.

STATE REPRESENTATIVE GASKILL ENDORSES JOE BIDEN

BIDEN HAS “THE BREADTH OF EXPERIENCE ON FOREIGN POLICY AND DOMESTIC ISSUES OUR COUNTRY SO DESPERATLEY NEEDS”

Des Moines, IA (November 14, 2007) – Today, Sen. Joe Biden received the endorsement of Iowa State Representative Mary A. Gaskill of Ottumwa. Rep. Gaskill becomes the thirteenth Iowa State Legislator to endorse Senator Biden.

Rep. Gaskill has dedicated a lifetime of service to Iowa. Prior to her service in the Iowa State House, Rep. Gaskill served six years as Clerk to the County Auditor and sixteen years as County Auditor in Wapello.

“I believe that Sen. Joe Biden has the breadth of experience on foreign policy and record of bipartisan leadership on domestic issues our country so desperately needs,” said Rep. Gaskill. “From the Biden exit plan for Iraq to his landmark Violence Against Women Act, Sen. Biden has proven he can build bipartisan consensus on the most important challenges facing our country. He is sincere, authentic and I believe he is the best candidate the democrats have -- and that is why I am supporting him.”

Sen. Biden noted, “Rep. Gaskill has dedicated a life of service to the people of Wapello County. Like many Iowans, she is concerned about the course America is on and knows the next president will need the experience to restore our reputation internationally and put an end to the gridlock in Washington. I am proud that Rep. Gaskill believes I am that candidate and has pledged her support to my campaign.”


Rep. Gaskill is currently serving her second term as the Iowa State Representative for the 93rd District, which includes Ottumwa in Wapello County. She serves on several committees in the Iowa House: the Environmental Protection Committee, the State Government Committee, the Transportation Committee, and as the Chairwoman of the Local Government Committee. She also serves on the Administration and Regulation Appropriations Subcommittee.

Rep. Gaskill joins an impressive group of Iowa state legislators who have endorsed Senator Biden including: State Sen. Joe Seng (Davenport), House Majority Leader Rep. Kevin McCarthy (Des Moines), Speaker Pro Tempore Rep. Polly Butka (Clinton), Rep. John Whitaker (Hillsboro), Rep. Doris Kelley (Waterloo), Rep. Lisa Heddens (Ames), Rep. Jim Lykam (Davenport), Rep. Mike Reasoner (Creston), Rep. Dick Taylor (Cedar Rapids), Rep. Roger Thomas (Elkader), Rep. McKinley Bailey (Webster City), and State Senator Herman C. Quirmbach (Ames).

###

New Edwards Ad in Iowa: "Health Care"

Days Until Bush Leaves Office = 433

John Edwards has put up a second ad in Iowa. The 30 second spot, titled "Health Care," runs as follows:

“When I’m president I’m going to say to members of Congress and members of my administration, including my cabinet: I’m glad that you have health care coverage and your family has health care coverage. But if you don’t pass universal health care by July of 2009 – in six months – I’m going to use my power as president to take your health care away from you. [Applause] There’s no excuse for politicians in Washington having health care when you don’t have health care. I’m John Edwards and I approve this message.”

The rhetoric and tone of the ad are vintage John Edwards. But I have questions. For instance, where the ad states "I’m going to use my power as president to take your health care away from you," what does that mean, exactly? What powers, specifically? A press release issued by the Edwards campaign today says, in part, "On the first day of Edwards’ administration, he will submit legislation that ends health care coverage for the president, all members of Congress, and all senior political appointees in the legislative and executive branches of government on July 20th, 2009 -- unless Congress has enacted universal health care reform.[emphasis added]" If John Edwards is planning to make good on his threat to end health care coverage for Congress by introducing legislation, isn't he forgetting that legislation is passed by Congress? I mean, Edwards does know that, doesn't he? Does John Edwards really expect the Legislative Branch, the castigation of which has become his main campaign theme, to suddenly change from the hopelessly corrupt institution he's been saying it is, and pass legislation that eliminates health care coverage for its own members? The bill would be dead on arrival, and its introduction would do nothing but irreparably poison from the outset Edwards' chances of achieving anything with Congress. Including, of course, universal health care.

If not legislation, what then? Executive order? Not likely. Presidents don't get to rule by fiat, no matter what George W. Bush and Dick Cheney would have us believe. Any attempt by the Executive Branch to eliminate health care for the Legislative Branch with a stroke of the presidential pen would face immediate challenge in the courts as a violation of Constitutional separation of powers. The likelihood of the order being upheld in the courts is remote, at best.

So what is John Edwards getting at here? If the answer is that John Edwards is the voice of the common American in this election, and this latest ad continues that strategy, then is it likely that this will win him any votes he doesn't already have? If it does, and this strategy ultimately delivers the White House to John Edwards, what will become of his ability to govern once he has tried, and likely failed, to achieve his objectives through unilateral application of presidential power?

Like so much about John Edwards, this latest salvo over health care, and the ad promoting it, just doesn't stand up to examination. The tragedy of John Edwards in this campaign cycle is that the approach he advocates to achieve the change that so many good people cry out for is so inherently flawed that it simply cannot succeed. Those who look to Edwards to deliver on his rhetoric will be sorely disappointed in the lack of results, leading to further disaffection of citizens from their government and the perpetuation of the apathy that is killing our democracy.

Change, in so many areas, simply must be achieved in this country. And sincerity, dedication, good intentions and even fiery rhetoric will all be necessary to make it happen. But they will not be enough, in themselves, to finally deliver results. That will require statecraft, and it will demand compromise. Ultimately, it will depend on the ability of the President of the United States to persuade people of all political viewpoints of the rightness of his/her cause, rather than merely exacting pain in consequence of defiance. Increasingly, John Edwards is demonstrating that he does not possess, or cares not to use, that ability. Whatever gifts and assets John Edwards may possess as a candidate, the fact that he no longer even feigns interest in the essential work of bringing people together to produce results for the American people makes him a very poor choice for our next president.

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.

Smartest Candidate Websites

Days Until Bush Leaves Office = 438

I came across this ultrakewl website that rates websites by reading level: grade school, college, etc. (a big tip o' the hat to Thoughts from the Oasis amidst the Corn for this!) I like it so much that I added it as a widget on this space.

And, because I'm, y'know, me, I immediately wondered how the candidate's websites stack up against each other on reading level. Here are the results!

Joe Biden:



Hillary Clinton:



Chris Dodd:



John Edwards:



Barack Obama:




Bill Richardson:

Progress Abounds in Iraq: 2007 Already Deadliest Year for US Troops

Days Until Bush Leaves Office = 440

Tragically and unforgivably, as of yesterday 851 United States troops have died in Iraq so far this year. This total is already higher than the 849 troop fatalities suffered by US forces in all of 2004, which, up until now, had held the record as the deadliest year of the war.

Compounding the senselessness of it all is this quote from today's New York Times:

"Military officials attribute the rise this year to an expanded troop presence during the so-called surge, which brought more than 165,000 troops to Iraq, and sent units out of large bases and into more dangerous communities."

So the surge, which was supposed to usher in a new era of stability in Iraq, has only resulted in increasing the number of US troops killed there.

These casualties make it only more pressing that Democratic members of the House and Senate finally act to restrain the Bush administration's folly in their conduct of the Iraq war. Many proposals have been advanced during the past five years, but the time has come to pass measures carrying the force of law to require the administration to change course in Iraq and produce either a political solution or redeployment of US combat forces. The current strategy, or, rather, lack thereof, is not worth continuing at the cost of a single additional American casualty.

"Piling On" And The Gender Card

Days Until Bush Leaves Office = 441

The New York Times is running a fascinating article today on the dynamics of gender in the race for the Democratic nomination for president. The focus is on last week's Drexel debate and the - ahem - vigorous questioning directed at Hillary Clinton, mainly by John Edwards, and, to a lesser degree, Barack Obama.

One of the most telling points in the article is that both supporters and opponents of Senator Clinton accuse each other of playing "the gender card;" supporters say that Edwards and others are sexist when "piling on" Clinton because she's the lone woman in an otherwise all-male field of candidates, and opponents claim that Hillary herself is playing the gender card by invoking charges of sexism in response to the questioning at the debate.

The article's best quote, illustrating how convoluted the entire argument is on both sides, comes from 1984 vice-president nominee Geraladine Ferraro:

“We can’t let them do this in a presidential race,” she said. “They say we’re playing the gender card. We are not. We are not. We have got to stand up. It’s discrimination against her as a candidate because she is a woman.”

As it happens, I saw the NYT article after trading some emails over the weekend with a senior aide to one of Clinton's Democratic rivals regarding last week's debate.

"Apparently, the Clinton campaign can't even get its story straight on 'piling on,'" one email began. "As with everything else, they're trying to have it both ways.

"'Hillary Rodham Clinton said Friday her status as the Democratic presidential front-runner - not her gender - has led her male primary rivals to intensify their criticism of her.' [AP, 11/2/07]

"'Hillary Rodham Clinton played the gender card Thursday after the worst stumble of her campaign, suggesting she's being singled out as the lone woman in an all-male presidential field.' [Newsday, 11/1/07]"

Interesting, I thought. I wrote back, "So, in your view, which is the real reason: that she's the frontrunner, or that she's a woman?"

The senior aide's answer: "Neither, as I don't think anyone was 'picking' on her. There were critical issues raised during the debate that deserved to be answered. In order to meet the challenges we face as a nation, the next president is going have to provide principled leadership and speak with clarity if he or she expects to bring people together to produce results for the American people. Unfortunately, Senator Clinton, when asked direct questions, didn't answer quite as directly."

I find myself inclined to agree with this view. No one is exempt - nor should be - from being pressed to provide specific answers to direct questions regarding the issues at stake in this campaign. The next president will come into office under the harshest and most skeptical gaze ever directed toward this country and its leadership, both at home and around the world. Crying "foul," on any basis, simply won't meet the requirements of the office in our time.

The irony of all this is that Hillary Clinton has, throughout her public life, proven herself tougher in the face of criticism than any of her contemporaries of either gender. To have Clinton's campaign and supporters raise gender now as a defense after a poor performance in a single debate ill-serves both the candidate and the progress she embodies.

Single Finest Moment in Drexel Debate Goes to Joe Biden

Days Until Bush Leaves Office = 446

While the mainstream media goes on and on about the Clinton-Edwards-Obama Mutual Deprecation Society on display in Philadelphia last night, the real story, in my view, is that another candidate kept his eye on the ball and took the fight to the Republicans in a way none of the other candidates came even close to doing.

That candidate was Joe Biden, and his blast against GOP presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani is already going into the books as a defining moment in this campaign. In last night's debate, Biden showed, as he has again and again, why it is that ideas, conviction and the courage to lead trump money, endorsements and media fixation, even when - perhaps, especially when - the better financed and better covered candidates are standing just a few feet away.

Biden's quote is being run all over the blogosphere tonight, but it bears repeating here:

“Rudy Giuliani. I mean think about it, Rudy Giuliani, there’s only three things he mentions in a sentence — a noun and a verb and 9/11; I mean, there’s nothing else. There’s nothing else.”

Crushingly brilliant stuff. Here it is on video:

AFSCME Endorses Clinton

Days Until Bush Leaves Office = 446

Here's the press release issued by the Clinton Campaign a few minutes ago:

American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees Endorses Clinton

30,000 Iowa Members

The Clinton Campaign today announced the endorsement of American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME). AFSCME is the nation’s largest public sector union, representing more than 1.4 million workers.

Danny Homan, President of AFSCME Iowa Council 61, said, “Hillary Clinton has the leadership, ideas, and strength to lead America in a new direction and her commitment to working families is unparalleled. We face serious challenges at home and abroad, and she is the best candidate to restore middle class economic progress, support our soldiers and veterans, and improve the quality of life for all Americans.”

“As our President, Hillary Clinton will help rebuild America’s middle class and make sure that everyone shares in our country’s prosperity. She has a record of leadership, of bringing people together for more than 30 years. Hillary Clinton inspires our members. She sparks the flame we need to win,” said AFSCME President Gerald W. McEntee.

McEntee said after 10 months of polling and interviewing members and scrutinizing candidates’ records, Clinton stood out from the pack.

“We had the most talented and diverse field of Presidential candidates we’ve seen in years. But when all was said and done, among our members Hillary Clinton clearly emerged as the best candidate to take back the White House for America’s working families,” he said

AFSCME said it would activate a 40,000-member volunteer army to mobilize its members, and launch an unprecedented GOTV effort in Iowa, where it represents 30,000 workers.

“I am honored to receive the support of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees,” Clinton said. “In my administration, America’s working families will again have a partner in the White House.”

Clinton has been endorsed by other leading national unions, including the American Federation of Teachers, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, National Association of Letter Carriers, International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers and the United Transportation Union.

Drexel Debate: Virtual Spin Room

Days Until Bush Leaves Office = 447

The shouting from last night is done...bar more shouting from the campaigns, via email. Here is what they want you to think the morning after.

Joe Biden

Following this evening’s MSNBC/Democratic National debate at Drexel University in Philadelphia, Biden for President Campaign Manager Luis Navarro issued the following statement:

“Tonight, Joe Biden proved once again that he is the Democrat most capable of leading the country and taking on the Republicans. While the other candidates were picking on each other, Senator Biden was laying out the case to the American people as to why we need a leader with the breadth and depth of experience to tackle the inter-related problems of a dangerous world.”

“The phrase most often heard on the stage tonight was, “Joe is right,” followed closely by the phrase, “I agree with Joe.” And only one candidate showed clearly that he is ready to take on Rudy Guiliani and the GOP. That candidate was Joe Biden and the evidence tonight was incontrovertible.”

Below is a sampling of support for Joe’s leadership:

On Iran: Clinton: “Joe is absolutely right.” Sen. Clinton said, “I think that what we're trying to do here is put pressure on the Bush administration. Joe is absolutely right. George Bush can do all of this without anybody. You know, that is the great tragedy and that's why we've got to rein him in, and that's why we need Republican support in the Congress to help us do so.”

On Pakistan: Dodd: “I agree with Joe.” Sen. Dodd said, “I agree with Joe. I think the more immediate problem is Pakistan, the one that needs to be addressed.”

On Afghanistan: Clinton: “I agree with Joe.” Sen. Clinton said, “I agree with Joe [regarding] the Afghanistan situation. Everywhere you look in the world we've got work to do, and I think we've got to do more than just send our young men and women out. That is not an appropriate use of their power.”

On Debating Republicans: Obama: “I'm not fearful, just as Joe isn't, to have a debate about this with Rudy Giuliani because we've got the facts on our side.”

On Oil: Obama: "As Joe pointed out, out of the $90 that it's costing right now for a barrel, about 30 percent of that is just risk."

Hillary Clinton

While her rivals abandoned the politics of hope and launched one attack after another, Hillary demonstrated why she has the strength and experience to deliver the change America needs.

Barack Obama and John Edwards relentlessly attacked Hillary for two hours at tonight's debate in Philadelphia, but scored no points.

Hillary took the best they had, rose above it, and came out on top.

Hillary continued to show her deep understanding of the issues and outlined her positive vision for America.

On Iran, she emphasized that we need to prevent President Bush's rush to war but must engage in aggressive diplomacy to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Hillary was among the very first Senators to speak out and make clear that George Bush does not have the authority to go to war in Iran, and is a co-sponsor of legislation to prevent him from doing so.

On Iraq, she talked about getting our troops home in the smartest, safest way we can. She made it crystal clear that if George Bush won't end this war before he leaves office, as President, she will.

At home she detailed her plans to offer quality, affordable health care to every American, move the nation toward energy independence and protect Social Security by restoring fiscal responsibility.

Tonight, Americans were reminded why poll after poll show that voters believe Hillary has the best combination of strength and experience to be President.
Despite repeated attacks from Obama and Edwards, Hillary leaves tonight's debate in a position of strength. A Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll out last week shows her leading the primary by 31 points, and beating all of the Republicans in head-to-head general election matchups. And a recent CBS News poll showed Hillary surging to a 28-point lead.

The campaign also posted their selected reviews of Hillary Clinton's performance last night.

Chris Dodd

At tonight's debate at Drexel University, Presidential candidate Chris Dodd demonstrated that he has both a long record of achieving results and an unrivaled ability to lead on the issues most pressing to our nation today. In addition to highlighting his proposals to curb the harmful effects of global warming and bring a responsible end to the Iraq war, Dodd also spoke passionately about the need for bold leadership and bringing people together, as well as the importance of electability when choosing a Democratic nominee.

"Whether it's fair or not fair, the fact of the matter is that when it comes to my colleague from New York, Senator Clinton, 50 percent of the American public say they are not going to vote for her. We, as a party, certainly have to take that into consideration," said Dodd. "For 26 years I have been involved in every landmark piece of legislation and had a Republican as my co-sponsor because no one party is going to straighten all of this out. I knew in order to move our country forward we had to have leadership in this country that understood the value of reaching out and finding common ground with people. So electability and the ability to govern and to do so immediately are important. Don't discount the importance of electability - it's a very important hurdle for us."

A senior Democrat on the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, Dodd has been involved in virtually every foreign policy debate over the past two decades. His diplomacy skills and experience in foreign affairs were on display at tonight's debate, where he distinguished himself from the field in his belief that we should not give the Administration carte-blanche to use military force in Iran.

"It was a moment (the Kyl-Lieberman vote), it was a critical moment when I think leadership is called for. If you're going to seek the leadership of our country, this is the most serious time in a generation. You have an ascending China, you have an Iran that's ambitious to develop nuclear weapons, you have obviously a four trillion dollar economy that's in trouble, a health care crisis in this country, as well as energy and other issues that are going to confront the next President. Good judgment and leadership in critical moments must be a part of this debate and discussion. That was a critical moment and the wrong decision was made in my view."

"Whether its his leadership on the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, global warming, health care, or restoring the Constitution, Chris Dodd unequivocally stands up for what is right for Americans," said Dodd Campaign Manager Sheryl Cohen. "And sure enough, the rest of the Democratic field always seems to follow Dodd's lead. That is the type of leadership and the set of values that we need in the executive office. Backed by a 26 year record of getting results for the American people in the Senate, Chris Dodd's candidacy is the strongest in the field."

The campaign also posted its ever-popular Dodd clock:



John Edwards

Today, Edwards for President communications director Chris Kofinis released the following statement in response to Senator Clinton’s argument for keeping combat troops in Iraq:

"Senator Clinton tonight articulated George Bush’s argument for staying in Iraq. Senator Clinton said we need to keep troops in Iraq for multiple missions, including training Iraqis and fighting al Qaeda. But we fight al-Qaeda in countries all over the world without occupying those countries. For over a year, John Edwards has provided a very specific plan to end the war in Iraq. The bottom line is Senator Clinton still refuses to provide a specific plan and still won’t commit to a timeline for withdrawal. And keeping troops in Iraq to fight Iran, as the resolution Senator Clinton just voted for would do, could even expand the missions in Iraq.

"This is a real difference between Senator Edwards and Senator Clinton. Senator Clinton says she wants to end the war, but she also says she will keep combat missions in Iraq. Keeping combat missions in Iraq means she will extend the war. John Edwards will end the war.

"John Edwards' plan for Iraq is very simple: No combat troops. No combat missions. No combat, period. And not by 2013, by 2009."

The campaign also posted their selected reviews of John Edwards' performance last night.

Barack Obama

At tonight’s debate, Barack Obama demonstrated the real choice in this race. On issues from Social Security to Iran to being open with the America people about her record, Senator Clinton offered more of the same Washington calculation, ducking and dodging that won’t bring the change America needs. Barack Obama demonstrated the kind of leadership that will bring change we can trust – the ability to bring this country together, stand up to the special interests, and tell the American people not just what we think they want to hear, but what they need to know about the challenges we face. That’s the kind of leadership Barack Obama has demonstrated through his two decades of service to America, and that’s what he’ll offer as President of the United States.

The campaign also posted their selected reviews of Barack Obama's performance last night.

Bill Richardson

New Mexico Governor and Democratic Presidential candidate Bill Richardson discussed his extensive experience in negotiating with foreign leaders at the DNC-sanctioned NBC/MSNBC Presidential Debate tonight.
When asked about how he would negotiate with Iran, Governor Richardson responded: "Even more of a threat than nuclear weapons is a loose nuclear weapon crossing the border. What we need is an international agreement. The key has to be diplomacy. In the fourth row, there is a man named Bill Barloon whom I rescued from an Iraqi prison in Abu Ghraib. It is going to take leadership, diplomacy, and negotiation. I went head-to-head with Saddam Hussein and brought two Americans out-- Bill is one. The greatest words I heard after I got him out were "thank you." Then I said, "I am taking you home." That is diplomacy. That means talking to Iran, Syria, and North Korea. I have done it all my life as a diplomat, as a U.S. ambassador, as a special envoy, and as a hostage negotiator. I have the most international experience. I have gone head-to-head with the North Koreans. We recently got back six remains of our soldiers. We got the North Koreans to stop their nuclear reactor. I believe it is important that we have a leader not just who can bring people together, but also can resolve some of the thorniest problems we have."

Richardson's campaign is currently running an ad, "Only One," that details a hostage situation in Iraq that then-Congressman Richardson was called upon to defuse. In the sixty-second spot, Bill Barloon, the late David Daliberti, and his wife Kathy Daliberti praise Richardson for obtaining the release of the two men from Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein in July 1995.

See the ad and background materials here:
http://action.richardsonforpresident.com/onlyone/

During a discussion about his qualifications to be the next President, Governor Richardson discussed his differences with the other candidates on the important issues facing our country.

"We need to get all of our troops out of Iraq," Richardson said. "I would get rid of No Child Left Behind. I believe we need to focus on the future. Look, the reality on the electability issue is that the last Senator who was elected President was 40 years ago. His name was John F. Kennedy. We elect Governors as Presidents. Seven out of the last eight have been either Governors or ex-Governors. My view is that I know how to bring people together. More important than all of the issues that we are talking about is: Who can govern? Who can manage? I am the only CEO in this race. I have balanced budgets. I have provided health care to kids under twelve. I have improved education. I have foreign policy experience. I have negotiated with foreign countries as a diplomat and as a hostage negotiator."

On the topic of energy, Governor Richardson showed that he has the most comprehensive and specific plan to address the issue of energy in the United States.

"We need an energy revolution that does the following: reduces the consumption of fossil fuels and establishes fuel efficiency standards of 50 miles per gallon," Richardson said. "Of all the electricity in America, have at least 30% produced from renewable sources. Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2040 and by 30% by 2020. We need a cap and trade system. We have to ask the American people to sacrifice a little bit. What does that mean? That means: When we use appliances, mass transit, or air conditioning, we all should come together to reduce this dependency on foreign oil that affects our national security. When 65% of your oil is imported, when the planet is polluted by fossil fuels and manmade pollution, we need American leadership and Presidential leadership to create an energy revolution."

As the only major Presidential candidate to make education a key issue on the campaign trail, Governor Richardson made his position clear.

"Compared to countries like China and India, there is a competitiveness gap here," Richardson said. "I would have 100,000 new science and math teachers. We have to pay our teachers what they deserve: a national average starting salary of $40,000 per year. I will get rid of No Child Left Behind. I would have science and math academies. We need to build into the high school curriculum more language and arts to provoke creativity in science and math."

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: