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.
This weekend in Iowa, it was all about Hillary Clinton. She dominated press coverage -- especially on Saturday morning when she appeared at a town hall in Des Moines. At the end of the weekend, most liked her. But just about everyone is still undecided, as this non-scientific survey shows:
The 14 party activists were invited by The Washington Post to cometogether to talk about the presidential race. All are currentlyuncommitted. Their views are in no way a scientific sample, but asvoters who pay especially close attention to presidential politics,they offer clues to the future in their impressions.
At the endof the conversation, these activists were asked whether they areleaning toward any particular candidates. Six said they are totallyuncommitted. Of the other eight, three mentioned Clinton as one of thecandidates they are looking at with the most interest.
Theiropinions underscored what polls and strategists are saying: TheDemocratic race in Iowa is wide open. There is great interest inIllinois Sen. Barack Obama but many questions about whether he is readyto be president. Former senator John Edwards of North Carolina is wellknown to Iowa activists, but for someone leading the polls here heevoked a curiously unenthusiastic reaction among many in the group.Other candidates sparked limited interest, although there were kindwords for former Iowa governor Tom Vilsack, New Mexico Gov. BillRichardson and Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware.
As we learned in 2004, most Iowa voters usually do not decide until the very end. In December of 2003, Howard Dean and Dick Gephardt led the pick. But in less than three weeks, John Kerry and John Edwards leap-frogged the front-runners. Ultimately, Dean finished third, while Gephardt finished fourth and decided to exit the presidential race.
This time around, some argue that things could turn our very different. Clinton and Obama have the most fundraising potential. Even though John Edwards, Bill Richardson, Tom Vilsack and Joe Biden have a harder time competing financially, will voters give them the chance, even amid the endless sworm of television ads from the top-two?
Today, released a poll that was conducted among New Hampshire Democrats between January 15 - 17. Barack Obama leads the field, with Clinton and Edwards close behind:
New Hampshire Poll Barack Obama - 23% Hillary Clinton - 19% John Edwards - 19% John Kerry - 5% Wesley Clark - 3% Joe Biden - 3% Dennis Kucinich - 1% Bill Richardson - 1% Tom Vilsack - 1% Not Sure - 22%
That poll is definitely not a surprise. New Hampshire voters, no matter what party they are, like to vote for the Washington outsider. Therefore, the fact that Clinton is currently behind is fairly reasonable. Also, Edwards trails as well because he is more popular among South-to-Midwest Democrats. In 2004, the only primary Edwards won was South Carolina. He currently leads in Iowa, and has notably strong local support among hotel workers and community politicians in Nevada, the other early voting state.
Still, regardless of her Washington establishment status, Clinton must do better in New Hampshire if she has any shot of winning the nomination. Putting it simply, the Democrats' primary schedule is not made for her. She is more popular in the traditionally blue coastal states like New York, Connecticut and California -- none of which vote until later in the primary season. New Hampshire went red in 2000, therefore cannot be included in that category. Still, it is a northern state. Voters in Iowa don't like her. She might be perceived as 'too east coast' for Nevada. The chances of her winning in South Carolina are even slimmer. Clinton needs to make the top-two in Iowa and Nevada, and then win in New Hampshire -- keeping her alive for the bluer primary states that come later.
For Edwards, Iowa is really make or break. He has been campaigning there since 2004, and knows the terrain better than anyone. A victory there would give him the extra media buzz to possibly take Nevada just three days later. No one thinks Edwards can win New Hampshire. But if he finishes in the top-two, he will have put himself in great shape to win South Carolina, like he did in '04. However, if Edwards cannot win Iowa, he will have a difficult time getting attention in the final days before the Nevada caucus. And remember, the primary schedule is red-heavy in the beginning two weeks. If after South Carolina he does not have more than two victories already, then you can kiss his chances good-bye.
As far as the other candidates go, they will need to find a way to take news time away from the big-three. Joe Biden is suited to finish well in South Carolina. He has a lot of support down there. Bill Richardson, geographically speaking, could make a strong showing in Nevada. Tom Vilsack will have to win Iowa, where he is Governor, in order to have any shot. Lastly, if Kerry did run, it would be like watching a train-wreck. He would have little shot in any state except for maybe New Hampshire.
Right now, Barack Obama definitely has the momentum. Although, Hillary Clinton is expected to make an announcement either next week or the week after, which could shake things up a bit.
Not really that surprising. These polls were conducted by around the end of December:
Iowa Hillary Clinton - 31% John Edwards - 20% Tom Vilsack - 17% Barack Obama - 10%
Nevada Hillary Clinton - 37% Barack Obama - 12% John Kerry - 9% John Edwards - 8%
New Hampshire Hillary Clinton - 27% Barack Obama - 21% John Edwards - 18%
South Carolina Hillary Clinton - 34% John Edwards - 31% Barack Obama - 10%
You might wonder why certain candidates do not appear in the results that I listed. I didn't include candidates with a percentage below 8% -- which explains why Kerry and Vilsack are only in a a few. For example, John Kerry only received 2% support in Iowa, which I thought was a waste of space to include.
As far as Hillary Clinton is concerned, this is as high as she will probably get in the polls, especially in Nevada. John Edwards has the most connections in that state -- so expect his numbers to go up once endorsements start flying his way later on in the year. Obama's numbers are not a surprise, since voters still know relatively little about him.
Lastly, the poll included eleven Democratic presidential contenders. Al Gore was not listed as one of them. Had he been included, the polls might have been different.
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.
(Before I get to the meat of this post, just know that I am still mostly impartial when I write blog entries on this site about the race for the 2008 Democratic nomination. Just because I am following Obama's New Hampshire trip this weekend doesn't mean I am supporting him. He is definitely the most "interesting" candidate at this point, in terms of his personal story. Yet, as with every other Democratic hopeful, there are some obvious strategic downsides to his candidacy. So just because I spend more time on three or four candidates during a given two-week period does not mean I either like or dislike them more than the rest of the field. I have been getting a lot of e-mails lately criticizing me for being obsessed about Barack Obama and Evan Bayh -- even though I am truly not. So that is why I am bringing this up.)
Still testing the waters a bit, Barack Obama is making a very important trip to New Hampshire this weekend. Sunday is the big day. He will engage in a book-signing event in Portsmouth, and then head over and at a major party event in Manchester.
Obama told the he is still trying to get used to all the attention:
"The whole prospect of a presidential race for me is not something I'veengineered. I was on a different internal clock," Obama said in atelephone interview. "It's only been in the last couple of months thatthe amount of interest in a potential candidacy reached the point whereI had to consider seriously."
He is expected to make an announcement regarding whether or not he will be running in just a matter of weeks. After that time, Hillary Clinton can either start panicking or give off a huge sigh of relief.
Actually, in my own personal view, Barack Obama's candidacy might even help Hillary Clinton in the short-term. Between January and about July, the race will be on to see which individual can establish themselves as the "anti-Hillary" candidate. Political wisdom might suggest that Obama and Edwards would split the donations from the anti-Hillary crowd, thus giving Hillary an even larger relative advantage.
One more point. All this presidential talk was not even supposed to happen this early. What we are seeing is really unprecedented in terms of the impact of star power. Originally, the plan was that Hillary Clinton would not announce her candidacy until March or April of 2007. But with Barack Obama stealing the spotlight, Clinton needs to move everything up in order to reduce the amount of consecutive months the media spends trying to hype up Obama. So now with Hillary trying to aggressively match Obama, that forces everyone else in the field to move their announcements up as well. That was why we saw Tom Vilsack and Evan Bayh announce within the last few weeks. Expect John Edwards and possibly Bill Richardson to also move everything in their calendar up a few weeks. The only candidate that can get away with starting late is Al Gore. Even if Gore entered the race in September, the buzz he could create might shift the entire Democratic political landscape -- especially if voters were getting bored with the pre-Gore presidential field.
Obama's visit in New Hampshire is extremely important because it forces other candidates to behave just as aggressively in order to attract the finite amount of media attention that there is.
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.
Now that the Democratic Party has chosen Nevada to join Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina among the list of early 2008 primary destinations, potential 2008 candidates and their staffs are already schmoozing with local candidates in that state. As explains, within the last month and a half there has been a flurry of preparation among the 2008 Democratic contenders to familiarize themselves with the political terrain:
We can't find this online, but... '08 Dem hopefuls "are scrambling" toschedule appearances in NV and the NV Dem party is "hitting the gas" inan attempt to keep up with the "fast-track campaigning" of possiblecontenders. Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), Ex-Sen. John Edwards (D-NC), Gov. Bill Richardson(D-NM) and Ex-VA Gov. Mark Warner are among those planning trips.Warner staff Jonathan Epstein "has already made the rounds here" andSen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) "has a trioi of staffers" working for NV candidates in the fall. Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) knows of at least "three other paid staff" in the state. Clark Co. Commission Chair Rory Reid has been contacted by Warner and Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE). Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman "has received a host of phone calls." And Dem GOV candidate Dina Titus has spoken with several candidates, including Sen. Hillary Clinton. Longtime Dem political consultant Don Hart"has been contacted by Biden and Warner."
Hotline blog adds that Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) believes Nevada is a much better place to have an early primary because it is a ideal representation of mainstream America in comparison to Iowa and New Hampshire:
Reid "is not " concilliatorytoward NH. Reid: "Why should this country's future be determined by astate like Iowa where there is no diversity and a state like NewHampshire where there is no diversity and no people?"
I have never been to New Hampshire or Iowa, so I can only go on statistics. I have, however, gone to Nevada on almost a dozen occasions. Harry Reid represents a very diverse state as far as income and ethnicity. Right now, Nevada is one of the fastest growing states in the country. Keep in mind that in 2004 in the country. Nevada, therefore, might be a great place to have an early primary.
Left unguarded by , , decreases in , and the added , the Republicans were exposed today by Hillary Clinton, Tom Vilsack and a group of Democrats on the issue of sound :
"It's the American dream, stupid," said the formerfirst lady in a riff on her husband's successful 1992 campaign mantra —"It's the economy, stupid." Democrat Bill Clinton served two terms inthe White House.
"They're not taking care of America. They'rebankrupting our country and failing to address the problems," the NewYork senator said, citing skyrocketing gas, college and health carecosts and lamenting a GOP "failure to provide Americans with economicsecurity."
"Once again America needs to work for everyonenot just the privileged and the powerful," Clinton said, adding thatDemocrats can be the "change agent" this fall by winning control of theHouse and Senate from Republicans.
"Democrats know we must stop passing on debtto our children and start doing what's best for our country and ourchildren," she said in a speech to moderates attending the annualmeeting of the Democratic Leadership Council, a centrist think tankbest known for helping her husband win the White House in 1992.
On the sidelines, as the DNC and the DCCC battle one another over for this November, the centrist DLC (Democratic Leadership Council) is making its move to once again establish itself as a prominent policy voice in the Democratic Party. Even though the DLC went through a pretty poor stretch between 2001 and 2003, where a lot of its foreign policy stances were in line with President Bush, it is still smart for Hillary to associate herself with a centrist group like that in order to broaden her support among independents. Also, the DLC issued another report urging Democrats to outside urban and inner suburban parts of the country -- which pretty much any Democrat would agree with.
Now back to the issue of the economy. According to a recent poll, are the number one concern for voters heading into the November election. Many, including myself, believe it is absolutely essential for the Democrats to tie energy and economics. Soaring gas prices impact how much money consumers spend, which in turn hurts small businesses. So convincing voters that we ought to invest money in alternative energy is a step in the right direction.
But energy isn't everything. The minimum wage, tuition, Social Security and Medicare -- all of which are cost of living issues -- need to be addressed. Ever so slowly, the Democrats are beginning to address them. This DLC event was very important because the Democrats have needed to brand themselves as the pro-family party. The Republicans can use culture to divide us all they want. But in the end, it's the economy, stupid.
Let's take a break from the 2006 midterm elections for a moment. I know that just about every post on this blog for the last few weeks has focused on the Democratic bid to take back the Senate and House this November. But I'd like to address an issue that other progressive blogs -- especially the big ones like , and -- will have to deal with as the 2008 primaries approach (and yes, the Iowa Caucus is only 18 months away).
The unsettled debate among progressive blog authors is whether or not to officially endorse a candidate either right before or during the primaries. On one hand, if you do endorse a candidate, as a daily publisher of content you run the risk of being thought of as partial and unreliable. On the flip side, by not endorsing a candidate you are essentially keeping a secret from your loyal visitors -- because, let's face it, everyone following politics has a preference right before an election. After much thought, I have decided that once I have thoroughly made up my mind beyond a reasonable doubt, I will not hide that opinion from any of you. This decision might come as early as October of 2007 or as late as a few days before the vote in January of 2008.
For the most part, I think of the blogosphere as a breath of fresh air that is a sharp contrast from the filtered content that the mainstream media throws at us each day. It goes against the whole point of a blog for its author to think one thing and say another.
Obviously, after I make my endorsement (unless for some weird reason I don't like any of the candidates), I will do my best to be as impartial as I possibly can towards the other contenders. If I support "Candidate A," that does mean I will focus all my energy on trashing the living daylights out of the other candidates. In other words, there will be no personal attacks against other Democrats (unless I am responding to an attack that they make against me, of course).
With the exception of the unlikely possibility that Joe Lieberman would run for president in 2008, I do not think that any of the current 2008 Democratic hopefuls would make a bad president. For example, even though I have been sharply critical of Hillary Clinton, Tom Vilsack, Evan Bayh and John Kerry and Chris Dodd from time to time, I would still support any of them if they won the party's nomination.
As of now, I will say that I am leaning towards Barack Obama, Mark Warner, John Edwards, Wesley Clark, Al Gore, Joe Biden, Russ Feingold, or Bill Richardson (assuming that all of them will run, even though a few probably won't). Obviously though, things will certainly change between now and then, and I do not expect to gravitate too close to any of those contenders for the time being.
So, as a little heads-up, just know that as 2008 approaches I will not have any hidden motivations when I write any post about a Democratic candidate. I think that all of the 2008 Democratic hopefuls have excellent leadership qualities that would help them lead our country in a more positive direction than it is today. Once I endorse a candidate right before the Iowa Caucus, you will know about it. The thirst to present unfiltered honesty is a large reason why I author this web site every day. Don't expect that to change anytime soon. ------------------------------------------------------------- Other blogs writing about the 2008 race: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .
Recent Comments