The Blue State

Gravel on the offensive

At the last two debates, you may have noticed something missing -- the entertainment.  Mike Gravel is no longer being invited to participate in Democratic debates, and he is lashing out, realizing his campaign is near an end:

Reading from a script, Gravel spent most of time railing against hisfellow candidates, the Democratic Party and various corporations fornot allowing him on the debate stage. Gravel was particularly irkedthat none of the seven candidates at the debate “thought to protest theobvious unfairness of keeping me out of the debates.” Instead heoffered debate commentary earlier in the evening through a video livefrom the Paris Hotel on the Strip to his campaign Web site.

Dinner coordinators took an Academy Awards-esque approach to gettingGravel off the stage, cueing his theme music (“Power to the People”)when he passed the seven-minute mark. While most candidates used thetime to rev up the crowd or outline an agenda, Gravel (when he wasn’tupbraiding his own party) was more gloom and doom, predicting a nuclearconfrontation with Iran. “You will feel this weight. You’re going tofeel that world depression. You’re going to see a nuclear confrontationand God knows where it will end. No, you will feel it. The drums ofwar, you can hear them beat,” Gravel warned. He also condemned theentire Washington establishment, saying, “It’s all about money, power,and greed.”

Gravel talked at length about the problems, but offered little inthe way of solutions. He did say he wanted to repeal the “corrupt”income and corporate taxes, but was honest about his prospects. “Youknow, I can’t deliver them either. There is no money.” While Gravelreceived some scattered applause when he voiced opposition to the Iraqwar and called for health care for all, the crowd wasn’t enthused. Thiscrowd of party loyalists — and likely caucus-goers –wanted more redmeat and less apocalypse. This is Vegas after all.

Chris Dodd or Joe Biden may be next.

LIVE BLOG: THE DEMOCRATIC DEBATE

Welcome to The Blue State's coverage of the Halloween week Democratic debate from Philadelphia, which runs two hours.  We are experiencing temporary difficulties with our chat window, and do apologize.  As a last ditch effort, I will live blog it.  Just keep pressing refresh for updates.  Feel free to comment as well:

• And so concludes our live blog.  Sorry again about the chat window not working.  But we made the most out of it.  We will definitely fix those technical difficulties beforehand next time.  SO WHO WON THE DEBATE?
• 11:02: Barack Obama will be Mitt Romney for Halloween.
• 10:58: Why is Russert asking if there is life on other planets?
• 10:57: Kucinich says he saw a UFO (No joke!)
• 10:55: Obama and Edwards are double-teaming Hillary on the former First Lady's answer about drivers licenses for illegal immigrants.
• 10:50: Obama on air travel: "This is a problem that has been building for a long time" ever since deregulation took place.  "Anyone that has been flying commercial has known that service has gone down."
• 10:47: Obama says the reimbursement systemz for Medicaid and Medicare are not working properly.
• 10:40: Pretty much every candidate feels that children need to go to school longer.  Edwards proposed that children's health care should be free.
• 10:33: KUCINICH: It is time for the Democrats to move on the issue of impeachment.
• 10:29: OBAMA: "We've got a tax code" filled "with corporate loopholes."
• 10:22: The moderators are now focusing almost entirely on domestic issues.  Each of the candidates are given 30 seconds.
• 10:18: Edwards explained that America can be patriotic about other things in America besides war.
• 10:17: Edwards says he would use the arm of the Justice Department to investigate price-gouging on the part of oil companies.
• 10:12: They are on their second of two commercial breaks.
• 10:11: Obama says he is not fearful of Mitt Romney's swift boating of Obama's name.
• 10:09: Clinton claims there is little difference between herself and Obama on Social Security.  However, there actually is a difference.  Obama wants to raise the Social Security tax cap from $97,000 to $200,000.
• 10:07: Obama accuses Clinton is giving convoluted answers on Social Security.  OBAMA: "I am not fearful to have a debate about this (social security) with Rudolph Giuliani."
• 10:01: Biden is slamming Giuliani, saying that he is not qualified to be president.  As far as what Giuliani ever talkes about, it's always "a noun, a verb and 9/11."
• 9:59: Edwards again was strong, saying that we are not going to look our children in the eye and hand this mess over to them.
• 9:51: Edwards had a few great lines -- confronting Clinton on her defense industry connections.  Furthermore, Edwards courageously said that the 2008 race isn't about any of them.  It is about the next generation of children being better off than their parents.  Excellent!
• 9:49: I just got back into the room as Obama laid the smack down on Hillary for not releasing records, and prolonging the secrecy of the Bush Administration.  And then now Edwards is laying into her.  Edwards says that if you want the status quo, then vote for Clinton.
• 9:39: Commercial intermission.  I'm taking a quick break.
• 9:38: CLINTON: "I stand for ending the war in Iraq, and bringing our troops home."  (That's spin.)
• 9:36: EDWARDS: "We should be in tell the truth mode."  Edwards is really slamming Clinton!
• 9:34: CLINTON: "We've got to get the Iraqi government to understand its obligations, because there is no military solution."
• 9:31: Kucinich calls for the US to fully participate in the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
• 9:30: Richardson wants an international agreement that we use diplomacy first.  RICHARDSON: "I went head-to-head with Saddam Hussein. ...I've done it (diplomacy)."
• 9:28: Chris Dodd says Pakistan more dangerous than Iran, especially if Pakistan falls.
• 9:26: BIDEN: "President's make wise decisions" based on "the situation they find themselves in the world."
• 9:24: CLINTON: "I intend to do everything I can to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear bomb."  She was then challenged by Russert.
• 9:23: KUCINICH: "We need to reject" war against Iran.  "There is no basis for it whatsoever....When you say all options are on the table, you are licensing President Bush." (Excellent, Kucinich!!!)
• 9:21: RICHARDSON: "I am the only one up on this stage that has negotiated with a foreign country."  Kucinich interrupted in response, "That's not true."
• 9:19: Edwards slamming Clinton, asking, "Has anyone read this thing?" -- pertaining to the Iran vote.
• 9:18: Clinton is defending her Iran vote, saying that it gives Bush "carrots and sticks" to confront Iran.
• 9:18: CLINTON: "We will not permit him (Bush) to go take offensive action against Iran."
• 9:16: OBAMA: "This kind of resolution (Iran war resolution) sends the wrong message" to the world.
• 9:15: BIDEN: The Administration's actions have "driven underground every moderate in Afghanistan and Pakistan."

Obama wins straw poll at Take Back America conference

Here are the results of the straw poll, sponsored by Politico.com and Greenberg Quinlan Rosner, and taken by 727 attendees at the Take Back America conference:

TAKE BACK AMERICA STRAW POLL
Barack Obama - 29%
John Edwards - 26%
Hillary Clinton - 17%
Bill Richardson  - 9%
Al Gore - 8% (Write-In)
Dennis Kucinich - 5%
Chris Dodd - 1%
Mike Gravel - 1%
Joe Biden - 1%

Opinion: Richardson wins New Hampshire debate

For those of you whose eyes were glued to the television for two hours, you witnessed a much more aggressive, combative and up-front debate than the first one two months ago.  In our live chat during the debate, our visitors had a wide variety of views about who won.  But we did reach a consensus about a few things.

• Chris Dodd did not help himself out at all.
• Dennis Kucinich was predictable, but did not tell us anything new.
• Hillary was Hillary.
• Mike Gravel thought outside the box, but didn't establish himself as presidential material.
• Wolf Blitzer's questions were much more entertaining than Chris Dodd's answers.

Overall, even though some of you may disagree, we thought that the upper second-tier candidates stood out -- particularly Bill Richardson and Joe Biden.

Biden, the U.S. Senator from Delaware, explained his unpopular decision to support the President's Iraq funding bill that did not include a timetable.  He did it by stating that practically speaking, the Senate needs 67 votes.  Until we get those 67 votes, when non-legislators like John Edwards tell you that the Senate isn't doing its job, they are spinning the truth.  Agree with what Biden said or not, he did come across as extremely practical on foreign policy issues.  That will give his campaign more life as we head into the summer months.

Richardson started off very slow.  But as the Brody File agrees, he grew stronger as the debate went on.  He took a principled stance on the Darfur issue -- saying that we should boycott the Summer Olympics in 2008 if China refused to get involved and pressure the Sudanese government.  He was strong on energy and all other foreign policy-related matters.  By the end of the debate, it was clear that Richardson was the most experienced.  The fact that Clinton kept applauding Richardson's work in her husband's administration really added legitimacy to his excellent resume.  On paper, he is clearly the most qualified to be president.  Tonight, he told us why.  He was very effective.  He won the debate.

John Edwards came in a close third.  On the issue of Iraq, he held Clinton and Obama's feet to the fire:

"Others were quiet. They went quietly to the floor of the Senate, castthe right vote. But there is a difference between leadership andlegislating," Edwards said.

Both Clinton and Obama voted against the bill - which passed - but without making a strong case against the legislation.

"I think it's obvious who I'm talking about," Edwards said.

That was one of the many excerpts where Edwards blamed people like Clinton and Biden for not condemning their own war vote in 2002.

As this column is being written immediately after the debate, this is less thorough.  Expect more columns about the debate in the coming days.

Our editorial board has put together rankings for how each candidate did tonight:

1. Bill Richardson
2. Joe Biden
3. John Edwards
4. Barack Obama
5. Hillary Clinton
6. Dennis Kucinich
7. Mike Gravel
8. Chris Dodd

Feel free to put in your ten cents in the comment box.

All talk at the first Democratic presidential forum

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:

1. Tom Vilsack
2. Hillary Clinton
3. Joe Biden
4. John Edwards
5. Chris Dodd
6. Bill Richardson
7. Dennis Kucinich
8. 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.

Iraq war is hurting our Middle Eastern allies

Some who have been supporters of the Iraq war ever since the beginning thought that such a conflict would frighten rogue states and terrorist entities in the region enough for them not to pursue weapons of mass destruction.  Although that was quite a noble goal, the exact opposite is taking place.  With the U.S. military stretched thin in Iraq, Iran is in a better position now than before the war to pursue such weapons.  The only countries that the war has frightened are moderate Sunni states like Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt -- all of which we partly depend on to secure our resources in the Middle East.

In fact, Jordan is worried that the war has even helped pro-Iranian Shiites increase their sphere of influence in the region:

King Abdullah of Jordan, a close U.S. ally, haswarned that the emergence of a Shiite-controlled Iraq could signal anew "crescent" of dominant Shiite movements or governments stretchingfrom Iran to Lebanon that could de-stabilize the region.

This shift in power is fueled by pro-Iranian Shiite nationalism, and is putting our resources in jeopardy.  Like it or not, we need oil.  Until we have complete energy independence, we cannot afford to have Iran's regional domination endanger our economic life-line.  As long as the region is polarized, pro-Iranian nationalism will increase.  So the longer we remain in Iraq, the more Iran can use our presence as a mechanism to fuel Shiite nationalism.  That is one of the many reasons why we need to start redeploying at the end of the year.  Middle Eastern stability, as many neo-realists would agree, not liberalization, should be our number one goal in the region at the moment.  You need stability before you can spread democracy, not the other way around like the Bush Administration believes.

Mike Gravel, the first official 2008 candidate, wants to dissolve Legislative Branch

The first Democrat to announce his bid for the 2008 presidential race is an outsider.  Former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel, who three decades ago was a major critic of the Vietnam War, says he basically wants to diminish the Legislative Branch of government, and instead let the average person vote on laws:

"Our three branches of government have become like an unstable chair, athree-legged chair," Gravel said. "The founders could not haveenvisioned how much money and special interests would corrupt thepolitical process. Giving us Americans legislative power will put forththe fourth leg of our stool and make it stable."

It's surprising to hear an individual that has a thorough understanding of the constitution conclude that we should essentially do away with an entire branch of government.  The three branches are there to balance against one another -- that was the way the framers intended, and that is what makes our system the best in the entire world.  He is right about the fact that "the founders" didn't envision "how much money and special interests would corrupt the political process."  But since that is the case, maybe the answer should be to reform campaign finance laws, as opposed to taking the polarizing route by dissolving our entire system. 

Our constitution's balance between democracy and representation is something special.  We elect legislators because they are usually more knowledgeable than the average person about the micro aspect of public policy.  If we don't like their job performance, then we can simply vote them out of office.  But I would really worry if we had fringe activist groups on other side of the political spectrum writing our nation's bills, which would then be voted on by average people -- almost all of which do not have time to read hundreds of pages worth of bills to make a reason-based decision.

And generally speaking, if I were him I would be more concerned with Executive power right now.