Iowa Women Do Well

After taking a break to visit Des Moines, I caught up with the results of Iowa state contests which were very good for the women candidates of Iowa. With the exception of the Governor's race and the 4th Congressional district, Democratic women candidates were the choice in the Iowa 1st and 3rd Congressional district, the Secretary of States's race, and also many House and Senate seats.

In the Senate 16 women from Democratic, Republican, and Libertarian parties out of 18 who ran were victorious in their primaries and in the House races, 58 out of 62. The positive is that the Iowa House and Senate may be more equally represented by gender in November than ever in the history of the state. If women won all the races that they are in, they would have 12 of 25 senate seats and 59 out of 100 House seats. However, though gender equality may be achieved, the politics would still be shaped down party lines as in the Senate 6 Republicans and 10 Democrats who are women are in contention for the seats and in the House, 16 and 46 respectively and also 2 Libertarians.

While top of the ticket women remain the domain for Republicans, the Democrats have fielded quite a few future party leaders. Anyway you look at the outcome of the primaries, change will come to the Iowa Legislature, the question is will that change be decidedly more progressive or conservative?

Post-Primary Mini-Dissection

It was a great day to be a local incumbent in Johnson County as all of them made it through the primary either unopposed or winning by large margins. It was also a very good day for women candidates of all parties as US Senatorial candidate Roxanne Conlin, US House candidate Mariannette Miller-Meeks, and Iowa House candidate Sandra Greiner withstood multiple challengers. On the other hand, in state- and national-level politics, it was not a good day to be a staunch conservative, as more moderate candidates were successful in defeating their "I'm more conservative than you" adversaries.

Voter turnout in Johnson County was an abysmal 10%, but showed that registered Republicans were more excited about the primary than their Democrat counterparts as more party faithful on the R side voted in the primary. A look at the early voter stats showed that Republicans won over Democrats in upping their membership for the primary. So what does this mean come November? It means that both parties will be working on turning out registered voters. It means that incumbents in challenged races will have to remind people why they should keep them around. It means that even in the Republic of Johnson County, there are those who aren't thrilled with the status quo on a state and nationwide level. However, the only thing that is stronger than the winds of change are the doldrums of apathy--and that will be what both parties will be dedicating themselves to defeat.

The Other State of the Union

Kansas's Governor Kathleen Sebelius made the Democratic response to the State of the Union Address last night. And, as I have said, she is a rising star among Democrats. This is no small accomplishment in a state that has been largely dominated by conservative Republicans. Note how she finished her address:

"We have no more patience for divisive politics.

Tonight's address begins the final year of this presidency, with new leaders on the horizon and uncertainty throughout our land. Conditions we face, at home and abroad, are results of choices made and challenges unmet.

In spite of the attempts to convince us that we are divided as a people, a new American majority has come together. We are tired of leaders who rather than asking what we can do for our country, ask nothing of us at all.

We are Americans sharing a belief in something greater than ourselves, a nation coming together to meet challenges and find solutions; to share sacrifices and share prosperity; and focus, once again, not only on the individual good but on the common good.

On behalf of the new American majority - the majority of elected officials at the national, state and local level, and the majority of Americans, we ask you, Mr. President, to join us. We are ready to work together, to be the America we have been - and can be once again.

Thank you for listening. God bless and sleep well. And in the morning, let's get to work."

In news this morning, Gov. Sebelius will announce her endorsement for Barack Obama.
Sebelius said her two "20-something" sons and 86-year-old father, former Ohio Governor John Gilligan, were already backing Obama.

Sebelius said Obama had the ability to bridge generations for the betterment of the country.

Obama's Hope Wins Big in SC

With 99% of the counties reporting, Barack Obama scored a decisive win in South Carolina by garnering 55% of the popular vote while Hillary Clinton got 27% and John Edwards won 18%.

The big story within the story may be the impressive turnout, which was almost double the turnout from the 2004 primary. Amo0ng the press, the story centers around race.

Going into the first Super Tuesday, the question will be, is this win due to the large turn out of African Americans in South Carolina (who make up 55% of the Democratic electorate in the state), of which Obama registered 78% of the vote or a combination of factors including young, affluent white voters voting solidly for him? The leader of the pack "O"-mentum has now swung in his direction.

For the Clinton camp, there is little good that came from finishing a distant second in the state, and for Edwards, the take away for him is that he did particularly well among white males and white voters who made up their minds within three days of the primary according to the Washington Post.

One clear message from last night's primary is that Obama can win in the south and this may carry him further in the minds of unconvinced Democrats than any other fact.

There is no ignoring that the Democrats are running against history and it is becoming clearer that the kind of change Democratic primary voters want looks less like John Edwards and more like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

The larger looming question is that the change that the majority of voters in the November election are also ready for?

Building a Bridge Over a Wedge Issue

It is a good time to be a progressive populist. The public, particularly independents, generally wants the type of changes that progressives have been advocating: affordable health care, diplomacy first foreign policy, home-grown economic growth through renewable technologies, reducing our impact on the environment. But before giddiness sets in, the battle issue of campaign 2008 will be between policies promoting job growth and immigration policy, as this excerpt from "The Democrats Path to Victory:
The public demand for progressive politics is growing stronger" alludes.

Democracy Corps political strategists Stan Greenberg, Al Quinlan and James Carville. “If 2008 is to bring a tidal wave, Democrats and progressives must become more fully the voice of what is wrong with these times. It is not enough to be anti-Iraq and anti-Bush.”

Democracy Corps polling supports this populist reading of the electorate. Given a list of phrases that reflect both conservative and progressive explanations, the top two choices among people who think the country is off course were “big businesses get whatever they want in Washington” (40 percent) and “leaders have forgotten the middle class” (38 percent).

But Democracy Corps also reports that the populist inclinations of Democrats and independents diverge, giving Republicans a political wedge opportunity. Democratic voters were most concerned about Iraq spending, healthcare inaction, and job loss to China and India. Independents cared most about unprotected borders, oil dependence and job loss. Thus, immigration emerges as a potential political problem for Democratic candidates, even though most Americans reject draconian crackdowns on immigrants.

Current debates about Iraq and globalization—in Congress and among the presidential candidates—show that Democrats have failed to take advantage of this progressive shift in public opinion.

What remains to be seen is how Democrats will defense against what will likely be a Republican onslaught to show how tough they will be to guard our borders and how the Democrats are soft, despite evidence to the contrary (e.g., it is the Democrats that have been the strongest advocates for port authority security). It is true that the Republicans have not been able to hone their message on this issue without seeming like they are foaming at the mouth, but you can bet that by their convention, this issue will be framed so that the middle-of-the-road voter will think this is important.

If I were the Democrats, I would be framing an immigration policy that is both tough and fair being careful not to replicate the plan that Bush has been forwarding, but to use the key pieces that both parties can agree on. Most Americans are not afraid of immigrants, but are afraid of losing their jobs. Whatever the Democrat's plan turns out to be, it had better remember the "jobs, jobs, jobs" mantra that earned the Democrats the White House.

The Dems Debate

Iowa Independent blogged it live.

You can pick up "webchat dust" about it at the Register site.

Dem Leadership to Cave In on War Funding--Again

How is this a winding the war down?

- Budget deal would give President Bush $70 billion in additional war funding

- Provision calling for a troop withdrawal from Iraq by end of 2008 dropped

- Legislation would be passed by end of the year

- Amount less than $200 billion requested by the president


From UPI and CNN
Democratic leaders said a budget deal containing funds for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is likely to pass without provisions for U.S. troop withdrawals.

Democratic lawmakers said Congress is likely to pass as much as $70 billion in war funding, but without measures calling for the redeployment of many of the U.S. troops in Iraq by the end of 2008, CNN reported Thursday.

Democratic leaders said the measure may spark controversy among the party faithful who have been outspoken against the war.
The base of the Democratic Party expressed concern of the lack of pressure exerted on U.S. President George Bush to change the Iraq policy.

Senate Republicans said they would block any budget deal that didn't contain at least some of the $200 billion in war funding requested by the Bush administration.

Democrats point to the measure as a victory that curtails the Bush administration's war effort.

"What is for sure is he will not get all $200 billion," said a senior Democratic. "Whatever number it is, it is much less than what the president asked for. For the first time in this war, he has received less than his request."

"The base will not be happy," said one senior Democratic aide, who requested anonymity to candidly discuss budget negotiations that have not been completed.

I'm In a Nevada State of Mind: From Plants to Pearls

Last night's "Dustup in the Desert" in Nevada showed off a strange side of "we the people." Apparently audience members of the Democratic debate thought they were at a WWF cage match event, as they whistled and booed at candidates' statements. Seemingly CNN ringmasters Wolf Blitzer and John Roberts, not unlike a professional wrestling referees, were oblivious to this.

Clearly it was important to all the candidates to perform well, but to a front-runner, "well" is not good enough. The word to HRC organizers was probably to turn out the troops. And turn out they did. This time instead of planted questions, there seemed to be a potted (if not "planted") audience.

Sour grapes you say? I'll confess that the boos did seem focused on the two-closest-to-Hillary-in-the-polls candidates--John Edwards and Barack Obama. But you tell me, what other debate's decorum was like this?

And what about the final question of the evening? Do you prefer pearls or diamonds? I don't suppose that Dennis Kucinich even minded being passed over on that one--it was such a meaningless softball (right up there with the boxers or briefs question that WJC was asked by an MTV audience some years back).

Despite the theatrics of the evening, it is up to the rest of us to pay attention to what these candidates actually say and to decide which one we believe will be the best leader to win back the White house in November 2008.

Wilson: Edwards Shines

From Real Clear Politics

Edwards Shines, But Clinton Still Leads
By Reid Wilson

PHILADELPHIA - In a debate long hyped as the battle many have waited for, when Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton would finally engage in hand to hand combat, it was a third candidate, former Senator John Edwards, who stole much of the show. Edwards, who has of late seen his poll numbers decline in Iowa, the state seen as crucial to his presidential bid, turned in a strong performance that his campaign hopes will set him up as the leader in the Anybody-But-Clinton primary.

Obama, who in a weekend New York Times interview suggested his campaign would take after Clinton in a new bid to cut into the front-runner's support, began the debate by backing off his statements. "I think some of this stuff gets overhyped," he said, in his first answer. "In fact, I think this has been the most hyped fight since Rocky fought Apollo Creed."

Later in the debate, Obama seemed to find his stride and recognize some of the urgency many of his supporters feel. He criticized some of Clinton's previous positions on Iraq, NAFTA and others, but he didn't rise to the bait offered by moderator Brian Williams until the middle half of the debate. Obama suggested that Clinton's leadership is neither consistent nor principled, though he did not name his opponent.

Obama, standing to Clinton's left, spent much of the early parts of the debate addressing moderators Williams and Russert, a pose that forced him to look away from his chief adversary. The visual, coupled with a reticence to strike rhetorically, gave an early impression of a candidate once again unwilling to go negative, even as it increasingly appears his only option.

On Clinton's right side stood John Edwards, who began the debate, unlike Obama, backing his campaign's assertion that the New York Senator engaged in "double talk." Accusing Clinton of changing positions on social security and other issues, Edwards reserved his most biting criticism for a recent vote designating an elite Iranian military unit as a terrorist organization. "A lot of us on this stage have learned our lessons the hard way: That you give this president an inch, and he'll take a mile," Edwards said.

Rattling off the similarities between the Kyl-Lieberman resolution, of which Clinton alone among Democratic candidates voted in favor, Edwards sounded exasperated. "Has anyone read this thing? I mean, it literally gave Bush and Cheney exactly what they wanted," he proclaimed. "How in the world is that ... Democrats standing up to this president and saying, 'No, we are not going to allow this, we are not going to allow this march to war in Iran'?"

As Edwards seeks to distinguish himself as the electable alternative to Clinton, he repeatedly bettered Obama's attack lines. After Obama suggested Clinton was a popular target of Republicans because the GOP relishes the ability to run against her, Edwards' hand shot up. The former senator sharpened the line, using it to suggest that Clinton should be unacceptable to the Democratic primary electorate as well. "If people want the status quo, then Senator Clinton is your candidate," Edwards said.

"The alternative to Senator Clinton is John Edwards," campaign manager David Bonior said after the debate. Bonior said his candidate succeeded in making the leap over Obama. "The distinction is very important, and Senator Edwards is the one who made it, not Senator Obama."

Clinton, for the first time, was forced to play defense virtually the entire night. She handled the broadsides from other candidates, hoping to prove to primary voters that she can weather the coming Republican storm. But her opponents' focus on the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, Clinton backers suggested, were based on false premises. "They've drawn a false alternative," said retired General Wesley Clark, who is backing Clinton. "And that shows their inexperience in foreign policy." Clark compared other candidates' answers to "Little League baseball," while Clinton, he said, was in the Major Leagues.

The attacks were something her campaign clearly saw coming: Instead of holding public events, Clinton's campaign kept her out of the public eye, hunkering down in debate preparation. That preparation, it seems, paid off.

The focus on front-runners was interrupted only briefly by good moments for some second-tier candidates. While Republican debates have been marked by frequent Clinton mentions, it was left to Joe Biden to take on GOP front-runner Rudy Giuliani. "There's only three things [Giuliani] mentions in a sentence: A noun, a verb and 9/11," he said, to laughter.

Bill Richardson stood up for Clinton at one point, calling attacks from Edwards and Obama a "holier than thou attitude." "It is pretty close to personal attacks we don't need," he said.

Even Dennis Kucinich, who longtime friend Shirley MacLaine recently suggested had seen an unidentified flying object, finished the debate on a high note, forcing moderator Tim Russert to admit that 14% of Americans claim to have seen a UFO. Kucinich, who had fun with the answer, made Russert repeat the figure twice.

The debate, though, focused primarily on the scuffle between front-runners Clinton, Obama and Edwards. And while Obama seemed to find his voice against Clinton late in the evening, it was Edwards who stood out, offering the clearest distinctions and the sharpest rhetoric in order to distinguish himself.

In the end, that outcome could benefit Clinton. With Obama in solid second place in most of the polls and suffused with enough cash to outlast at least a month of early contests, Edwards still will help himself to a sizable chunk of the Anybody-But-Clinton crowd. That constituency remains fractured, and by the end of the day, that's good news for Hillary Clinton.

Philadelphia, home more than 200 years ago to America's first angry political debates when framers of the Constitution haggled over the founding language, saw another contentious brawl this evening, the hottest of the 2008 Democratic campaign. But the scrum did little to shake up the race, and Clinton's rivals will now have to wait to find the next opportunity to make their case to the electorate.

Democrats Messaging Heartless

Noted linguist, philosopher, and all-around thinking man, Noam Chomsky said, "If we choose, we can live in a world of comforting illusion." Nobody helps us do that better than the Republican party. With "Healthy Forests" that involve clearcutting miles of acres of trees and "Clear Skies" that increase the levels of carbon dioxide emissions leading to faster global warming, the "Way Forward" is well-- "Mission Accomplished." The turn of a phrase has won the hearts and minds of the masses, at least until the 2006 mid-term elections. But, as it turns out, some jackass Democrats want to tear a page out their playbook and get a leg up on their peanut consuming, never forgetting elephant counterparts.

According to The Hill

Democrats are losing the battle for voters’ hearts because the party’s message lacks emotional appeal, according to a widely circulated critique of House Democratic communications strategy.

“Our message sounds like an audit report on defense logistics,” wrote Dave Helfert, a former Appropriations spokesman who now works for Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii). “Why are we defending [the State Children’s Health Insurance Program] instead of advocating a ‘Healthy Kids’ plan?”

Helfert sent the memo this week to an e-mail list of all Democratic press secretaries and communications directors after staffers met on Monday to discuss rolling out the Democrats’ latest message.

He said the meeting left him cold because it focused on what polling shows voters want rather than how to present persuasive messages. Republicans have done a better job by developing poll data into focus group-tested messages like “culture of life” and “defending marriage,” along with attacks like “cut and run” and “plan for surrender” in Iraq, he argued.

In particular, Helfert points to Republican pollster Frank Luntz, who helped develop the 1994 “Contract with America” and is credited with helping Republicans come up with terms for polices like “Healthy Forests” and “Death Tax.”

“Republicans have been kicking our rhetorical butt since about 1995,” Helfert wrote.
Democratic leadership aides were not impressed, and indicated that the memo did not have a vast and immediate impact.

So, if I understand this, Dems, like the Repubs, want to find better catchphrases to help the rest of us "get with the program." I know words are powerful, but there is something to be said for telling people the truth. As I recall -- actions speak louder than words. Try speaking plainly.

We are waiting for leadership--actions, not just words. You want to appeal to our emotions, show us that you will end the war, take care of our children's health, and keep us safe and employed. As the late Paul Wellstone said, "A politics that is not sensitive to the concerns and circumstances of people's lives, a politics that does not speak to and include people, is an intellectually arrogant politics that deserves to fail.”

Its ON! January 3rd

Democrats apparently will be joining their Republican counterparts to hold their caucuses on January 3rd, Mike Glover from the Des Moines Register reports via Talking Points Memo.

Dems to Debate from Des Moines Early Sunday

This Sunday morning bright and early at 8:00 am (check here for your area), the Iowa Democratic Party will co-sponsor a live debate featuring all the Democratic presidential candidates with ABC News and ABC5/WOI-TV. The debate will be held at Drake University and broadcast live on a special edition of This Week with George Stephanopoulos.

The 90 minute debate will also feature questioning from David Yepsen of the Des Moines Register.This will be one of six debates sanctioned by the Democratic National Committee and all eight Democratic presidential candidates have confirmed their attendance. Senator Joe Biden, Senator Hillary Clinton, Senator Chris Dodd, Former Senator John Edwards, Former Senator Mike Gravel, Representative Dennis Kucinich, Senator Barack Obama and Governor Bill Richardson will all be participating.

“The Iowa Democratic Party is proud to co-sponsor this debate with ABC News and ABC5/WOI-TV,” said Iowa Democratic Party Chair Scott Brennan. “We are looking forward to welcoming all of the candidates to Iowa. Iowans take their role as first-in-the-nation caucus-goers very seriously and this debate is a great opportunity to hear all the candidates share their vision for our country with Iowans and Americans.”

Dems Let their Hair Down at Kos Fest

Watch Daily Kos Dem Debate videos here for a more lively debate. Bill Richardson fans may be not be disappointed to his first response in video 2, but a "screw up" of the sort he describes would be unfathomable.

Also, here's John Edward's rally at the Kos Fest

Report Says Dems Not Making Headway

So is it really a surprise that some people feel like the Democratic leadership in the House and Senate have blown their hard fought political capital? Passing the minimum wage bill while simultaneously funding the war may have seemed like a good idea at the time, but was politics over pragmatism the way to go?

A report from the Democracy Corps says "Optimism for the new Congress is quickly waning. Many voters still express a wait-and-see attitude, but most have now returned to the same concerns we heard last year -- accomplishing nothing, career politicians just trying to get re-elected, do nothing but argue with each other, lobbyists, wasteful, paid too much money, and most of all, out of touch."

The bottom-line is the presidency and congressional elections of 2008 are not going to be a shoe-in for the Democrats, particularly if they are seen as ineffective. Here's a suggestion to Harry Reid and Diane Pelosi: Stop being meek about ending the war and pushing the "100 day agenda" to the president's desk. Stop pussy-footing around about the administration's wrong-doing and put a couple independent council investigations together.

Mostly, because it appears to the public that the Democrats are being overly deliberative about doing something about the VP and Alberto Gonzales, the best thing that can done is to "walk the walk" of being the party of change.

If You Want the Facts, You Need a Fact Checker

The Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania has done a very good job of checking candidates' facts against the record. Here is their link from the latest debate.

For example:

Chris Dodd was rhetorically accurate but intellectually disingenuous when he said, “But I believe I'm the only candidate here, along with Al Gore, who's called for that, is (sic) a corporate carbon tax. You've got to tax polluters.” Dodd is the only candidate to call for a “corporate carbon tax,” and indeed, Al Gore has advocated the same, though he often refers to it as a “pollution tax.” But two other candidates offer similar plans. Both Richardson and Edwards have proposed some form of carbon permitting by which companies would have to apply and pay a fee for the right to emit carbon pollutants. It is worth noting that all three candidates have also called for a reduction in greenhouse emissions of at least 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

Ketchup With the Democrats Debate

It is clear that the Democrats can not really have a debate without challenging each other--GOOD! If the candidates choose to stand at the podium looking like bottles of generic ketchup, should anyone care if one of them is actually a better ketchup?

It is good to hear actual disagreement between this candidate's ideas and the next. This is why I feel John Edwards did well and Barack Obama and Joe Biden came to play. I think the discussion on positions about Iraq is important. I continue to enjoy the Mike Gravel Straight Talk Express and Dennis Kucinich is consistantly predictably repeating why he has been right all along, but will not be elected. Why Bill Richardson and Chris Dodd are faltering is anyone's guess, but it is likely due to their diplomatic natures. Hillary Clinton continues to enjoy the glow of front-runner status, but she really didn't say anything about her ability to lead the country, and seemed resigned to the adoration bestowed on her husband.

Frankly the format of the debate was odd. I was less impressed with the questioning of Wolf Blitzer--what role would Bill Clinton serve--please! Why didn't he ask how Michelle Obama or Elizabeth Edwards would differ from Hillary as a first lady? I don't think he was even-handed in asking for rebuttals. Plus, there were assorted glitches in the technology which didn't help matters.

Based on my review of the debate, I'd give higher marks to Edwards, Obama, and Gravel (though its not likely to move him from the fringe). Joe Biden scored some "integrity" points. Richardson and Dodd need to Cowboy up and get their issues in. Hillary can afford to take a non-position as she is the known quantity in the minds of the journalists. Dennis Kucinich, he can go defend his home district.

In general, it would be good for the Democrats to talk about the economy, the deficit, and entitlement programs. Also, it didn't seem like the environment got any airing.

Date Set for Dems to Debate in Des Moines

The Democratic National Committee has announced dates and locations for six sanctioned presidential debates including in Des Moines on August 19th which will be broadcast on ABC. August 19th is also the last day of the Iowa State Fair--so it is likely that there will be many candidate sightings then.

The full debate schedule:

June 3 at St. Anselm College in Manchester, N.H.

July 23, Charleston, S.C., televised by CNN.

Aug. 19, Des Moines, Iowa, televised by ABC.

Sept. 26, Hanover, N.H., televised by MSNBC/NBC.

Oct. 30, Philadelphia, televised by MSNBC/NBC.

Nov. 15, Las Vegas, televised by CNN.

Dec. 10, Los Angeles, televised by CBS.

With the candidates each fielding dozens of debate requests, the DNC agreed earlier this year to sanction one per month beginning in July.

Buddy, Can You Spare Some Earned Media

At what point is a candidate a "serious" candidate? One measure is cash--Clinton, Obama, Edwards got a lot of it--Kucinich, Richardson, Biden, Dodd, Gravel have less--that makes them not "serious?"

Another measure is familiarity of the candidates--again Clinton, Obama, Edwards have high Q scores and poll ratings--the others don't. Again, does this determine whether a candidate is "serious?"

Another measure is body count--how many people show up to your events? Obama, Edwards, and Clinton do better than the other candidates, but does this make them more "serious" as a candidate.

With the first primary at least eight months away, it makes no real sense to declare who the victors are, particularly when reporting favors the wealthy and the known. Shouldn't reporters attempt to distinguish differences between candidates' views rather than their bank accounts or ability to fill seats?

FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting) takes a whack at how "lesser" candidates are portrayed in the media.

"Left wing" ideas such as Kucinich and Gravel's opposition to the Iraq War are shared by a majority of the U.S. population; it's telling that this is insufficient to make them "serious" for Broder. By contrast, after the Republican debate, the Post reported (5/4/07) that "the three candidates who top most national polls—Giuliani, McCain and Romney—made forceful presentations, but those struggling for attention also generally acquitted themselves well." In response to three of the candidates expressing support for creationism, the Post noted their public support (5/6/07): "But a look at public polling on the issue reveals that the three men aren't far from the mainstream in that belief."

Describing the Democratic debate, the Los Angeles Times argued (4/27/07) that the wide debate format "allowed each candidate a total of 11 minutes to talk—giving Kucinich and Gravel, both of whom have a negligible showing in polls, equal time with the front-runners, which they used to take aggressive hits at [New York Sen. Hillary] Clinton and Obama." At this point, more than half a year before the first actual voters have a chance to weigh in, poll numbers should not be the prime determiner of who gets to participate in a debate; even so, Kucinich and Gravel are in what amounts to a statistical dead heat in many polls with candidates treated more seriously by the corporate media, like Biden and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson.

While Kucinich and Gravel were asked only eight questions in the April 26 debate, Biden received 11 and Richardson 10—nearly as many as the 12 each answered by "front-runners" Clinton, Obama and former vice presidential candidate John Edwards. This despite the fact Kucinich was tied with Richardson and Biden in the latest Pew poll (4/18-22/07) and actually beat Biden in the latest Fox poll (4/17-18/07).

Gravel-tis and other Dem Vignettes from South Carolina

This is what is great about being a "lower tier" candidate.



Obama and Kucinich Square Off


Biden His Time



First 9 minutes of Debate - 4 minutes of promoting South Carolina, MSNBC promotion, Iraq




Last Six Minutes (Moral Leadership, Nuke Proliferation, Wal-Mart, Happy Talk)


The whole thing is at MSNBC

Mission "Irresponsible"

From ABC

President Bush denounced "irresponsible" Democrats on Tuesday for going on spring break without approving money for the Iraq war with no strings. He condemned House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's trip to Syria, too, accusing her of encouraging a terrorism sponsor.

And now the (irresponsible?) irony...

Speaking a day before he heads out of town for six days for events in the West and an Easter break at his ranch, the president said Democrats are failing their responsibility to the troops and the nation's security by leaving for their own recess after passing bills to fund the war that contain timelines for American withdrawal.

More irony:

The United States agreed yesterday (2/26/07) to join high-level talks with Iran and Syria on the future of Iraq, an abrupt shift in policy that opens the door to diplomatic dealings the White House had shunned in recent months despite mounting criticism.

The move was announced by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in testimony on Capitol Hill, after Iraq said it had invited neighboring states, the United States and other nations to a pair of regional conferences.

"I would note that the Iraqi government has invited all of its neighbors, including Syria and Iran, to attend both of these regional meetings," Rice told the Senate Appropriations Committee. "We hope that all governments will seize this opportunity to improve the relations with Iraq and to work for peace and stability in the region."