After a very intense discussion between members of our team, The Blue State will declare John Edwards as the winner of the first Democratic presidential debate. He was clearly more prepared than anyone else, appeared the most sincere and positive as well. Here are our rankings, from best to worst:
John Edwards - Most straight-forward in his answers. Clearly came off the best. He had a lot riding on this debate, and came up big.
Barack Obama - Being attacked by Kucinich and Gravel made him look more mainstream and more electable. Strongest on foreign policy -- really shined on that issue.
Hillary Clinton - Very sharp answers, especially around the end. Saying that she was from New York twice, while speaking in a non-New York accent, may have hurt her sincerity. But overall she was surprisingly analytical.
Joe Biden - His infamous one-word answer contradicted criticism for his typically long-winded rhetoric. Strongest tonight on the issue of non-Iraq foreign policy.
Bill Richardson - Stumbled a bit on the Gonzales question, but rebounded when he talked about North Korea and Iran -- since foreign policy is clearly his strength.
Chris Dodd - Exactly what we expected out of him.
Dennis Kucinich - Picking a fight with Obama just to pick a fight didn't help him at all. Obama should have ignored him. He actually should have spent more time talking about Cheney impeachment.
Mike Gravel - The "potted plant" comment was the most thoughtful insight he said all night.
I was going to post a few videos of the first Democratic presidential forum, which took place in Nevada. In the end, there was nothing to report. The session had a different format that I had previously thought. Instead of the candidates debating one another, moderator George Stephanopoulos interviewed each of them one at a time. The candidates were given a two-minute opening statement (which almost no one except Joe Biden and Dennis Kucinich kept under two and a half minutes), a few softball questions and a closing statement. The candidates went for applause, not substance.
There was not a lot of new material. However, Hillary Clinton did call for the government to become less dependent on contractors. Joe Biden did the best job of anyone when it came to explaining his Iraq exit strategy without watering himself down in meaningless rhetoric. The audience was very quiet when he spoke about Iraq, but mainly because what he said about de-centralizing the government had a great amount of depth.
Tom Vilsack clearly had the edge on health care. Even though he spoke in policy wonkish language, he got a huge ovation after he finished outlining the complexity of the health care issue because the audience appreciated his thoroughness. He explained that you cannot have universal health care without reforming the entire system on an administrative level.
Bill Richardson, who is by far the most experienced on foreign affairs, did not impress many. In fact, he had a 1988 Bill Clinton moment. At the end of his lengthy introduction, the audience laughed when he told them that he had one more topic to discuss before ceasing what seemed like his never-ending chatter. Although, Richardson was stronger in his closing remark. The New Mexico Governor touted his foreign policy record, which made the lesser experienced candidates like Edwards and Kucinich look less credible when giving their foreign policy positions.
Without making this a very lengthy post, if I had to rank how each candidate did in the debate in terms of their effectiveness in helping themselves in Nevada, I would say that Tom Vilsack won the debate. Here are the rest:
Tom Vilsack
Hillary Clinton
Joe Biden
John Edwards
Chris Dodd
Bill Richardson
Dennis Kucinich
Mike Gravel
Again, it is still early. The first REAL debate will be in just a few weeks. All the candidates, including Barack Obama, will be present.
Today, Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) submitted legislation that if passed would restore habeas corpus and outlaw torture in hope of at least doing something to revitalize American image abroad and live up to our belief in the rule of law. Dodd, who is also a 2008 Democratic presidential candidate, went on CNN's The Situation Room and promoted his legislation:
Under the Military Commissions Act, passed just last year, the government is allowed to hold any U.S. citizen indefinitely if they are even suspected of being a threat to national security. Dodd wants to change that, and make sure that anyone being held has a right to a trial. Most importantly, a vote on this bill will force Republican lawmakers to take a stand: either you support habeas corpus, or you reject it. Either way, take a stand.
When members of Congress take a step outside the closed off shell known as Capitol Hill -- whether for meetings with constituents or tours overseas -- they tend to re-develop their human side. Last week, the outrage by senators Chris Dodd (D-CT) and John Kerry (D-MA) over President Bush's troop escalation turned very personal. They were informed about the that they met in Iraq over the holidays, who warned the senators what what troops were going through now that the military is over-extended to a breaking point:
Just before Christmas, an Army captain named Brian Freeman corneredSens. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) and John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) at aBaghdad helicopter landing zone. The war was going badly, he told them.Troops were stretched so thin they were doing tasks they never dreamedof, let alone trained for.
Freeman, 31, took a short holiday leave to see his 14-month-old daughter and 2-year-old son, returned to his base in Karbala, Iraq,and less than two weeks ago died in a hail of bullets and grenades.Insurgents, dressed in U.S. military uniforms, speaking English anddriving black American SUVs, got through a checkpoint and attacked,kidnapped four soldiers and later shot them. Freeman died in theassault, the fifth casualty of the brazen attack.
The death of the West Point graduate -- a star athlete from Temecula,Calif., who ran bobsleds and skeletons with Winter Olympians -- hasradicalized Dodd, energized Kerry and girded the ever-moreconfrontational stance of Democrats in the Senate. Freeman's death hasreverberated on the Senate floor, in committee deliberations and ontelevision talk shows.
You have to wonder why it takes something like this to happen for some senators to wake up and take a bold position on the war? The answer is that we are all human, and most human concerns are local. Sure, most of us are outraged by the war, and would like to see it end. But the people that are internally depressed because of Bush's failed policy are the ones that actually knew someone who lost their life in battle.
In other words, if all of the victims in this war were the family, friends and acquaintances of lawmakers, then we would not be in Iraq today. I guess it goes to show how removed the Washington establishment currently is from all the military communities that deal with this tragic reality on a daily basis.
Way under the radar, Senator (D-DE) said he will run for president. The Delaware Senator will find himself even more in the shadows when John Edwards on Thursday from New Orleans, and then both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton announce in January. Still, Biden hopes that voters will look past the hype of certain rock star candidates and look for the most experienced individual:
"Frankly, I think I'm more qualified than other candidates, and theissues facing the American public are all in my wheelbarrow," Bidensaid. "I know I want to be president, I know what I believe and mymessage is important."
Still, Joe Biden will have a difficult time getting media attention because of his aristocratic speaking style (which is what happens when you stay in the Senate that long) and the fact that he has been branded as part of the Washington establishment. The same is partly true about Hillary Clinton, except for the fact that her name recognition automatically gives her better marks.
In other '08 news, the dates for the first three contests in the race for the Democratic nomination have been :
Iowa Caucus - Monday, January 14, 2008
Nevada Caucus - Saturday, January 19, 2008
New Hampshire Primary - Tuesday, January 22, 2008
After New Hampshire will come South Carolina, which John Edwards won in 2004. Remember, a , although both are important in terms of sending delegates to the Democratic National Convention.
Without further adieu, as The Blue State blog does every week, here are the odds that each of the Democratic presidential hopefuls have of winning the nomination. Remember, these are entirely subjective, and are based on the analysis of a political science student (me!). It has nothing to do with who I want to win, and everything to do with a number of factors: fundraising potential, appeal in early primary/caucus states, star power, experience and others.
Hillary Clinton - 25%
Barack Obama - 24%
John Edwards - 20%
Al Gore - 12%
Tom Vilsack - 9%
Bill Richardson - 4%
Joe Biden - 3%
John Kerry - 1%
Chris Dodd - 1%
Dennis Kucinich - 1%
was last week's total.
Again, don't write Gore off just yet. His book, titled , will be out in May. If the book does well, he would have every reason to throw his name into the field of candidates. If it bombs, then the chances are he will stay out of it. But don't expect a decision out of Gore until after the book comes out.
Hillary she will wait until the first part of January before making an announcement. Obama will no later than mid-January. Evan Bayh and Tom Vilsack are already in it. But just when you thought that eleven possible Democratic candidates were enough, another individual threw his name into the hat yesterday. U.S. Congressman (D-OH) that he will run in 2008 because he believes his party has done a poor job challenging the President to get troops out of Iraq:
The liberal, anti-war Ohio congressman said he was inspired to runbecause he disagrees with the way some of his fellow Democrats arehandling the war, including approval of a proposal to spend $160billion more on the conflict.
"Democrats were swept into power on Nov. 7 because of widespreadvoter discontent with the war in Iraq," said Kucinich, 60. "Instead ofheeding those concerns and responding with a strong and immediatechange in policies and direction, the Democratic congressionalleadership seems inclined to continue funding the perpetuation of thewar."
His candidacy might have some initial appeal -- that is if he were running against Bush. But when the reality sets in that George W. Bush is not running for reelection, progressive voters might be looking for a fresh face -- which is why Evan Bayh and Barack Obama could have a lot of appeal.
Speaking of Evan Bayh (D-IN), his recent New Hampshire visit was overlooked by the mainstream media because Obama gave a big speech there around the same time. But that didn't stop Bayh from telling New Hampshire voters that his number top issues in 2008 will be global warming and energy independence. He says those issues have bipartisan appeal. The reported on his trip:
"I'd begin with this energy issue, includingglobal warming, because it affects so many important things and becausethere's some common ground there," he said.
Bayhwas hosted by Democratic state senators from Keene and Cornish onSunday, after speaking at a reception in Manchester on Saturday night.
Bayhhas promoted himself as a moderate who can work with Republicans. Hesaid he expected the new Democratic majorities in Congress would makefederal funding for stem cell research one of its their top prioritieswhen it convenes in January.
Back to Obama's New Hampshire trip. reported that the "largest crowd in modern New Hampshire history" saw his speech on Sunday afternoon.
Without further adeiu, here are the weekly rankings for each of the Democratic hopefuls. Dennis Kucinich's name has been added to the list, impacting some of the candidates (Remember, these are rankings based on a political science student's take on who has the best odds, as of now, of winning the Democratic nomination. This is not who I want to win. It is based on who I think has the upper hand on fundraising, appeal in the early primary states, a low unfavorable rating, and the best campaign team.).
Hillary Rodham-Clinton - 24%
Barack Obama - 19%
John Edwards - 15%
Al Gore - 14%
Evan Bayh - 8%
Wesley Clark - 7%
Bill Richardson - 4%
Tom Vilsack - 3%
Joe Biden - 2%
Dennis Kucinich - 2%
John Kerry - 1%
Chris Dodd - 1%
(last week's ) Up a few points is Barack Obama. I was waiting to see what type of a reception he got in New Hampshire. Since the officials up there said it surpassed everything they had predicted, I am giving him an edge of four points on Edwards now, who seems to have hit a brick wall. The former North Carolina Senator's media attention is way down. The media is branding this as a match-up between Clinton and Obama. If Gore gets in the race at the end of the summer, that may destroy any slim chance that Edwards might have. For every day that Obama or Clinton spends in Iowa, Nevada or New Hampshire, John and Elizabeth will need to spend double the time campaigning in those places. Unless either John or Elizabeth write another book soon, their media honeymoon might be over.
Also, if it weren't for the fact that there will be major hearings on Iraq in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee when the Democrats take back Congress, then I would put Joe Biden at the very bottom of the list. But those hearings will give him a lot of press coverage, since he is the Chairman of that committee. Still, I see the likelihood of Biden getting nominated as less than Bill Richardson or Wesley Clark.
Who stands the best shot at winning the Democratic nomination? This is the first in a series of weekly posts that will forecast the odds that each Democratic hopeful has in winning the nomination.
As the war in Iraq boils over and the Democratic Congress prepares to assume its leadership position in January, it is probably not a good idea to become too fixated on the 2008 race for president. I don't plan to analyze this each day between now and next fall. However, this winter is a time in which a lot of candidates will start making formal announcements. In the coming weeks, I will pay close attention to who is thinking of joining the field.
As General Wesley Clark, a 2004 presidential candidate, yesterday, he made a strategic error by getting into the race so late last time around. When he joined the field in September of 2003, he hardly had any funds and did not even hire a campaign manager until November. By that time, he only had two months until the Iowa Caucus. From watching what happened to Clark in '03, candidates will want to get in early. Setting up a presidential exploratory committee offers potential contenders a loophole in the federal elections law that allows them to raise cash without formally declaring their candidacy. Since Hillary Clinton already raised tens of millions of dollars, hardly anyone will be able to compete with her unless they start setting up exploratory committees immediately.
Without further adieu, here are the odds for each of the possible Democratic contenders. I base this on potential appeal in early battleground states, unfavorable rating, potential issues in late-'07 and early-'08, fundraising potential, and net-roots support. This is more or less my analytical bias, and does not represent any bias for who I want the Democratic nominee to be (I am undecided, anyway!):
Hillary Clinton - 24% chance
John Edwards - 17% chance
Barack Obama - 16% chance
Al Gore - 15% chance
Evan Bayh - 7% chance
Bill Richardson - 5% chance
Joe Biden - 5% chance
Wesley Clark - 5% chance
Tom Vilsack - 3% chance
John Kerry - 2% chance
Chris Dodd - 1% chance
Keep in mind that these numbers will fluctuate over time, especially when some candidates from this list officially take their names out of the hat.
Every projection like this requires some kind of analysis. Here is the way I see it. Hillary Clinton is definitely in the lead right now, for the most part due to her significant money advantage that would help mobilize get out the vote efforts and travel in the early primary states (Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina). What she has going against her is her vote for the war and her unpopularity among Democratic activists.
That brings us to the race to become what I call the "anti-Hillary" candidate. As of this moment, there is a log-jam between Barack Obama, John Edwards and Al Gore. Voters who want an alternative besides Hillary Clinton will likely choose between these three candidates. John Edwards is very popular in the labor movement, who are more likely to choose a Washington outsider that has stood against free trade agreements like NAFTA and CAFTA. Al Gore is also a serious threat to Hillary Clinton's nomination, and has a strong following in the Northeast and out West. It still remains to be seen whether Gore's green themes will catch on in Nevada, Iowa and South Carolina. However, being that New Hampshire is in the Northeast, and being that the state has historically respected independent-minded, maverick candidates, Al Gore might even be the odds on favorite there. Then there is the wild card: Barack Obama. The Illinois Senator is also a threat to Hillary Clinton because he will grab a significant portion of the female vote. Already pledging to announce his candidacy on the Oprah Winfrey show, should he decide to enter the race, Obama might cut Hillary's female voting base by a third. Out of the three -- Gore, Edwards and Obama -- Edwards has a slight advantage because of his popularity among local politicians in Iowa and Nevada. Edwards travels to both places more than any other presidential hopeful in both parties. In January of 2004, the Des Moines Register newspaper endorsed him. Over the last half year, Edwards has campaigned with hotel unions in Las Vegas. The Edwards strategy appears center around winning Iowa and Nevada by getting the support of labor unions, while conceding New Hampshire and then going after South Carolina, which he won in 2004.
When you move down the list, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, Senator Joe Biden, and Senator Evan Bayh are still within striking distance. They don't have a lot of name recognition, especially Evan Bayh. But of the three, Indiana Senator Evan Bayh definitely has the advantage. By next fall, those who have never heard of him today will learn to appreciate him as a very positive, consensus-building leader. As an opponent of gay marriage and flag burning, it would be difficult for the Republicans to attack Bayh in the general election. However, his biggest obstacle might come from the NRA, which has consistently opposed his strong gun control stances. He voted for the Iraq war and against partial birth abortion. However, he did vote against a repeal of the estate tax, in support of investigating the no-bid contracts in Iraq, and yes on a bill that would have reduced our dependence on foreign oil (had it passed). He is very much an environmentalist, but conservative on social issues. Bill Richardson and Joe Biden both have foreign policy credentials. It is highly probable that they would be considered as a vice presidential pick.
As far as the remaining candidates are concerned, here is all that needs to be said. John Kerry would be committing political suicide by running again, especially after his botched joke. Chris Dodd lacks publicity. However, if the Connecticut Senator can pass his bill that would repeal the Military Commissions Act, then he will have helped himself. Tom Vilsack has declared his intention to run. Keep in mind though that Vilsack is not even catching on in his home state of Iowa, which still seems to be split between Edwards and Clinton. Wesley Clark lacks both attention and money, therefore he would be wise to enter the race ASAP.
Again, I am going to try and make this a weekly thing. If it catches on, great. If not, then I will find some other way of critiquing the field.
As progressives like and numerous blogs have been pointing out, the that was passed this fall suspended habeas corpus for anyone that the government considers to be a threat to national security.
Senator (D-CT), a possible 2008 presidential candidate, has introduced legislation that would repeal the Military Commissions Act. Dodd's , via the , goes through the bill itself:
Restores Habeas Corpus protections to detainees
Narrowsthe definition of unlawful enemy combatant to individuals who directlyparticipate in hostilities against the United States who are not lawfulcombatants
Bars information gained through coercion from being introduced as evidence in trials
Empowers military judges to exclude hearsay evidence they deem to be unreliable
Authorizes the US Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces to review decisions by the Military commissions
Limitsthe authority of the President to interpret the meaning and applicationof the Geneva Conventions and makes that authority subject tocongressional and judicial oversight
Provides for expeditedjudicial review of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 to determinethe constitutionally of its provisions
“We in Congresshave our own obligation, to work in a bipartisan way to repair thedamage that has been done, to protect our international reputation, topreserve our domestic traditions, and to provide a successful mechanismto improve and enhance the tools required by the global war on terror,â€Dodd said.
This is in response to the Military Commissions Act, which Bush and McCain compromised on -- except it was not really a compromise at all. Hopefully this bill passes, so we can get back into the habit of restoring constitutional law in this country. In Article I, Section IX of our , it says the following:
The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended,unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety mayrequire it.
There isn't a rebellion. We are also not being invaded by terrorists. Dodd's measure would restore habeas corpus, and also restore some of our standing with the rest of the world. Then again, in the mind of Dick Cheney, wanting to work with other nations to fight terrorism is second tier compared to invoking a unilateral foreign policy.
The least talked about Democratic contender for president in 2008 also happens to be the only one that has announced his candidacy. Nonetheless, Senate Democrat Christopher Dodd from Connecticut raised a grand total of $1 million in just one week alone, :
Sen. Christopher J. Dodd's political action committee raised about $1million this week in his first major fundraiser since he said he wasconsidering a run for the presidency.
The event at Washington's Phoenix Park Hotel was the first bid forpresidential cash since the Connecticut Democrat said May 22 he wasconsidering a run for the White House. Tickets were $1,000 each, butcontributors could give up to $5,000.
Dodd has done little publicly since he said he was looking into a run,and plans to continue operating quietly for most of the summer. Hiscamp believes its time is better spent showcasing his Senate work andbuilding a campaign treasury. The senator does plan to speak Tuesdaynext week to the National Partnership for Woman & Families inWashington, but other than that, no major events outside the Senate areplanned.
Dodd's greatest need is to come up with a campaign kitty that will beconsidered viable. In the insular world of early presidential politics,activists look to the money figures as evidence of credibility andsupport.
Dodd had about $2 million on hand last month, a number which willclearly grow because of the fundraiser. But he still lags well behindothers, notably New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, who has anestimated $20 million on hand, and 2004 Democratic nominee John F.Kerry, who has about $17 million.
Most people, even some bloggers, do not know who this guy is. Dodd cannot remain under the curtain for much longer though. He needs to appear more frequently on news shows. He needs to offer his own plan on Iraq. He needs to appeal to the blogosphere. It will be hard for him to keep up with some of the other Democrats, such as Mark Warner, John Edwards and Hillary Clinton, unless he gets it into gear fast. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Other blogs writing about this: , , .
Recent Comments