I Was There as Edwards endorsed Obama

Wow! People talk about being "Fired Up and Ready to Go" at Obama rallies, but I must say I never imagined seeing what I just saw in Grand Rapids, in the heart of conservative West Michigan.

An endorsement from John Edwards.

I arrived at Van Andel Arena (named for a conservative cofounder of Amway) around 5:15. The line to get in moved quite rapidly, probably because there were plenty of metal detectors to keep people moving in at an efficient pace. I sat in the upper level of the arena, but I was closer to the stage than many people there. Besides, given who we knew was going to be there, I wasn’t complaining.

A disabled veteran led us in the Pledge of Allegiance. The crowd cheered as they saw the young man in crutches approach the podium. After that, someone from the field office had everyone get out their cell phones and text 'MI' to 62262 to stay involved with the campaign.

A little while later we saw the "Yes We Can" video by will.i.am. A little later, The Wave.

I reflected on the people there. They were diverse in race, age, and surely walk of life. I saw middle-aged white men. I saw black women. I saw kids - plenty of kids! Many of whom won’t be old enough to vote this November. Still, they were witnessing history. Sure, school was out for the day. But these kids were getting a hands-on education, just as I did when I saw Al Gore at Calder Plaza in October 2000.

Around 6:35, a worker at the Lear factory in Walker - which will be closing in a few months - spoke about his struggles to get by as the cost of living increased but his paycheck didn’t.

He had the honor of introducing the man who would be President.

At 6:38 PM, Barack Obama - one of the smartest and most beloved people in modern politics - stepped up to the podium.

He started by telling us he had a treat. And a treat it was as he introduced a young man who has dedicated his life to tackling the many issues ordinary Americans face.

Once Barack uttered the words "John Edwards," the place went nuts. We all knew what Edwards’s presence there meant. I was hopping up and down like I’ve never done at any political function in my 20 ½ years. Hell, I’m not sure I’ve ever been so excited at a sporting event!

Edwards spoke of the major themes of his campaign: Poverty, social justice, healthcare, and of course making the two Americas one. "The Democratic voters of America have made their decision," he added, "and so have I."

In his remarks, Obama made the solemn promise that Edwards would find in President Obama a fierce comrade in the fight against poverty. He then touched on what he has discussed throughout his campaign, including the many important issues we face in this country and the importance of changing the way Washington operates.

There seems to be general agreement that Senator Obama will be our Democratic nominee. He pointed out that both Edwards and, yes, Hillary all stood for a much-needed change in Washington. On more than one occasion, Obama called out McCain as someone who simply offers more of the same. Obama, speaking in a conservative region of battleground Michigan, was in full general-election mode.

At one point during the speech, we got a glimpse of what kind of human being we'll have as our President if this man is elected.

At one point, Barack saw that someone in the crowd had fainted. He interrupted his spiel for a moment to alert the EMTs that someone had fainted. He then took his bottle of water and asked people to send it back to the person who had fainted.

I'm not sure many politicians would interrupt their own speech to do that - much less give up their bottle of water.

When the speech was done, the crowd dispersed, and I made my way to the car. As I got in the car, I looked in the mirror and asked myself: "Did I really just see Edwards endorse Obama?"

Oh, yes, I did.

And I hope that you too have the privilege of being there to see and hear Barack Obama bring out your emotions and move you to action.

Candidates, others react to Bush's State of the Union address

The official Democratic response to the State of the Union was given by Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius:



The Presidential candidates offered their two cents as well. Here's Barack Obama:



Hillary Clinton:

President Bush had one final chance tonight to acknowledge what the American people have known for years: that the economy is not working for middle class families. Unfortunately, what he offered was more of the same - a frustrating commitment to the same failed policies that helped turn record surpluses into large deficits, and push a thriving twenty-first century economy to the brink of recession.

John Edwards:

"The president tonight renewed his call for an economic recovery plan. But the plan he and Congress have offered leaves out tens of millions of Americans who need help the most. This plan would take months to have any impact, and the people I meet everyday on the campaign trail do not have months to wait. These people are hurting now and need this help now. Over the past seven years, typical workers' paychecks have failed to keep up with inflation, millions of families are facing the loss of their homes to foreclosures, health insurance premiums have doubled, and families are spending $1,000 more a year on gasoline. The State of the Union may be interesting political theater, but until we find bold solutions to the challenges facing the country, we will be stuck with the same old small, Washington answers."

Michigan politicians with their reactions include Carl Levin:

“We need to turn the page on President Bush’s ‘more of the same’ policies and priorities that he continued to offer in his State of the Union address. Democrats and Republicans in Congress need to seek common ground to turn that page.

Debbie Stabenow:

"Unfortunately, the President is pushing a stimulus package that leaves out one of the quickest, most effective ways to stimulate our economy – extending unemployment insurance. Economists and experts from both sides of the aisle agree that extending unemployment insurance will immediately boost consumer spending, while allowing individuals more time to search for a job in a difficult market. I will continue to lead this effort in the Senate Finance Committee."

John Conyers:

Near the end of his speech, the President asked us to "trust the people," and promised that as long as we do so, "our Nation will prosper, our liberty will be secure, and the State of our Union will remain strong." There's a great post on DailyKos about that passage, showing a series of statistics of how many Americans disagree with the President on Iraq, warrantless surveillance and torture. I am also certain that if you asked the millions of Americans in danger of foreclosure, or bankruptcy due to medical bills, or parents with children in failing schools, they would have a very different take on the state of our union than the President. So in that last section of the address, I found a ray of hope--a year from now, we will be addressed by a new President, and I trust that the people will reflect on the hardships and disappointments brought on by the Bush Administration, and that they will elect someone ready to lead the country in a new direction.

Hillary ekes out New Hampshire upset; more analysis

With most of the votes in, CNN and other outlets say that Hillary Clinton and John McCain have each won their respective parties' primaries in New Hampshire. Time for me once again to don my pundit cap. (Apparently I look a lot more attractive with a pundit cap than without one.)

In terms of pledged delegates to the Democratic and Republican national conventions, Barack Obama still holds a thinner-than-Wheat-Thins lead of 25-24 over Clinton, with Edwards at 18. Romney has 24 delegates to 18 for Mike Huckabee, 10 for John McCain, 6 for Fred Thompson, 2 for Ron Paul, and 1 for Duncan Hunter. Again, a candidate must win a majority of the convention delegates to win the nomination. More on how delegates are selected later.

If nothing else, Hillary and McCain proved with this primary that they are top-notch contenders and are both very much in it. Big victory for Hillary? Yes. Setback for Obama? Yes. Fluke? We'll find out soon enough.

For Hillary, this win should remind everyone that it's not over yet, despite her disappointing third-place finish in Iowa. Must do well in: Michigan. I mean, there are five choices on the ballot in Tuesday's primary: Clinton; Gravel; Kucinich; Gravel; Dodd; and Uncommitted. Gravel and Kucinich were the bottom finishers in both Iowa and New Hampshire, while Dodd is no longer running. More on Michigan's primary in the next couple days.

For Obama, this could in many respects be considered a disappointment. He was, after all, leading by several points in most polls leading up to the primary. He had a certain amount of momentum that has now been lost. That said, only twice in the last ten elections has a Democrat won every single Democratic primary and caucus, and Obama only lost New Hampshire by two points. Also, as I mentioned, he holds a one-vote lead in the delegate count. If nothing else, this should motivate Obama supporters and remind them not to take things for granted. Oh, and polls aren't always that reliable. Must do well in: South Carolina. Nearly half of South Carolinians who took CNN's exit poll in the 2004 primary were black. Neither New Hampshire nor Iowa can be considered nearly that racially diverse.

Edwards has pulled two disappointing performances in a row. Both Clinton and Obama received twice as many votes as Edwards in New Hampshire. Must do well in: South Carolina, for three reasons. First, he was born in Seneca, SC. Second, he currently lives in North Carolina. Third, he won South Carolina over Kerry in 2004. Should he follow his disappointing showing in the Granite State with another one in the Palmetto State, look for many in the 'Anybody-but-Hillary' crowd to ratchet up the pressure on Edwards to drop out and let said anti-Hillary crowd more or less unite behind Obama.

Richardson has been a much bigger disappointment than Edwards. Richardson took 2% in Iowa and 5% in New Hampshire, failing to win a single delegate to the Convention. Must do well in: Nevada, with its heavy Latino population.

Just a few months ago, McCain was all but counted out. His campaign looked like it was on its deathbed. Yet with a third-place finish in Iowa and a victory in New Hampshire, it appears that (to borrow an expression) rumors of the death of his campaign were greatly exaggerated. Must do well in: Michigan, where it has been a battle between him and Romney from the get-go.

Romney won the barely publicized Wyoming caucus last Saturday and has finished second in the other two states. Despite their second-place finishes, he and Obama each actually lead their National Convention delegate counts. Still he must do well in: Michigan, which his father governed from 1963-1969.

What happened to Huckabee? McCain tripled Huckabee's total in the Granite State, and Romney came close to pulling off the same feat. South Carolina has a higher percentage of evangelical and born-again Christians, and regional favoritism could benefit him. Thus, he must do well in: South Carolina.

Rudy Giuliani edged Ron Paul after finishing behind him in Iowa. Fred Thompson took a dismal 1%. Why is Duncan Hunter still running?

Iowa results - and where we go from here

Here are the near-final Iowa numbers from CNN as of 2:45 AM:

Obama - 38%
Edwards - 30%
Clinton - 29%
Richardson - 2%
Biden - 1%

Biden and Chris Dodd have dropped out.

Huckabee - 34%
Romney - 26%
Thompson - 13%
McCain - 13%
Paul - 10%
Giuliani - 3%
Hunter - 0%

Time for some analysis. By winning, Huckabee and Obama have momentum heading into next Tuesday's New Hampshire primary. The Iowa Democratic caucus was seen as a very close three-way contest amongst Clinton, Edwards, and Obama. The Republican caucus was seen as a toss-up between Huckabee and Romney.

For Obama to win by eight points, therefore, should be considered particularly good news for him. Also good for him is that quite a few more independents - a voting bloc where he did particularly well in Iowa - are expected to vote in New Hampshire. Also, the fact that he won an overwhelmingly white state tells us that, well, his appeal crosses racial lines. If he can follow his win in Iowa with another one in New Hampshire, then he will have high expectations for South Carolina, whose black population is quite high.

Edwards really needed to do well here. Had he finished behind Hillary, I doubt his campaign would've ended, but his organization was said to be lagging behind Hillary and Obama in other states. In other words, unlike Obama and Hillary, most of his chips were down in Iowa, and he needed to do well there to get some mo'. Now he needs to do well in South Carolina, where he was born. That said, his second-place finish couldn't hurt too much; for him to beat Hillary (albeit by a small margin) gives him some momentum.

For Hillary - long considered the front-runner - to finish behind both Obama and Edwards has got to be disappointing. Having said that, she and Obama are the two with the most organized campaigns. She had been leading in several states. Whether she gets any momentum from Michigan - where she is one of four candidates in contention (along with 'Uncommitted') - remains to be seen, since Michigan has lost its delegates because of the fact that holding a primary on January 15 violated Party rules.

Richardson needs to do well somewhere. Preferably Nevada, with its high Latino population. With just 2% in Iowa, his campaign is on the ropes.

Romney has to do well in New Hampshire for two reasons. One, the state he governed, Massachusetts, borders New Hampshire. Two, Iowa has a higher percentage of evangelical and born-again Republican voters than New Hampshire; they are seen as the main reason Huckabee won. If Huckabee can use his Iowa momentum and overcome those obstacles to win New Hampshire, then he is the clear front0-runner heading into the Michigan primary a week later. (Michigan Republicans lost only half of their delegates for scheduling the primary on January 15.) If Romney loses New Hampshire, then he MUST hold off Huckabee here in Michigan, which his father governed during much of the 1960s.

For McCain, Thompson, and Giuliani, it's a fight to stay in the top tier. Ron Paul could yet pull off a surprise, since he seems to be sharing in the momentum. Why Duncan Hunter is still in the race beats me.

You might look at these returns and think, 'well, Obama did great.' I, an Obama supporter, am pleased that he won. But you see, what matters is how many delegates to the Democratic and Republican National Conventions are won by each candidate. Obama holds a narrow lead with 16 Democratic delegates, followed by Clinton at 15 while Edwards has 14. Huckabee leads the Republican delegate count with 17, followed by Romney at 12, McCain and Thompson at 3 apiece, and Paul with 2.

Even more interesting? Both parties require that a candidate gets a majority of the delegate votes at the convention. No candidate has a majority on either side.

Now, here's what's likely to happen. As the primary season continues, a clearer picture will emerge on both sides of the aisle. Seeing writing on the wall, more candidates will follow Biden and Dodd out of the race, meaning less competition for those who are still in it. In 2004 eight Democrats were in the running leading up to the caucuses. Dick Gephardt dropped out after Iowa; Joe Lieberman exited after New Hampshire; Wes Clark's swan song came following voting in Tennessee and Virginia; and Howard Dean's downfall was completed after the Wisconsin primary. After 'Super Tuesday' which was then in March and not February) John Edwards dropped out.

In all likelihood, as candidates drop out they will release their delegates. That is, they will allow the delegates pledged to vote for them to instead vote for someone else. In 2004, for example, many of the candidates received delegates, but only Kerry won a majority of the delegates. The other candidates released their delegates, allowing them to vote for Kerry at the convention and providing a near-unanimous vote for Kerry.

So there you have it. Obama and Huckabee are by no means assured of their nominations. But they are the front-runners and they do have that all-important momentum heading into the rest of the primary season.

My thoughts on the Democratic candidates

All in all I’d say we have a stronger group of candidates than we did in 2004. I was enthusiastic about Dean almost from start to finish (with spurts of support for Clark and Kucinich as well). Any of my top three picks for 2008, however, would make very good Presidents.

Given what has happened over the last 78 months in this nation, America needs a capable leader who can not only help clean up the mess of the past six and a half years, but someone who will raise the bar in Washington. Moreover, we need a President who will remind us of what it means to truly be Americans.

So here is how I rank the candidates at this moment:

Obama: Very inspiring. Message of hope lures thousands to rallies, which is unusual for this point in an election. Has rock-star appeal that won’t hurt him come General Election time. Has a very detailed issues page on his website - probably the most detailed of any candidates’. Remember, we’re talking about the Presidency of the United States. A nation in desperate need of leadership needs someone like Obama, who continues to insist that we must be united if we are to bring about meaningful change in America. Inexperienced; Perhaps, but so were FDR and Lincoln. (Not to say Obama will be anythnig like those two.)

Edwards: Like Obama, has an excellent rags-to-riches story. Though I really like Obama at this point, Edwards has the best platform thus far. Seems to be the only person willing to talk about the divide between the elite class and ordinary Americans (‘Two Americas’). Vote for Iraq War is about the only thing stopping me from really supporting him.

Richardson: Has a full resume`. Again, our next President must be a strong leader; Bill has led a state and a Cabinet department, in addition to serving in Congress and as a UN Ambassador. His foreign-policy credentials are unmatched. Not all that charismatic like Obama, but makes up for it with his experience. Him being on the ticket would almost certainly swing New Mexico our way. Attracted 40% of the Republican vote in his re-election campaign last fall. Has actually called for a de-authorization of the war. Would complement the less experienced Obama or Edwards well as a VP candidate.

Kucinich: A staunch progressive with amazing ideas who isn't afraid to speak his mind. Comes from even more humble roots, having lived in a couple of cars at one point!

Dodd: Fierce critic of the war. Friend who interned for Stabenow last year says Dodd impressed him. Other than that, he doesn’t stand out in my mind much; I don’t see him as a good leader.

Clinton: Don’t get me wrong, she has some great ideas as well. But she is too polarizing a figure at a time when we really need a President who truly is a uniter, not a divider. Seems to me that while she’s married to Bill in a literal sense, in a figurative sense she’s ‘married’ to Corporate America.

Biden: Has foreign-policy credentials as chair of the Foreign Relations Committee. Would make a fine Secretary of State. Otherwise, less than inspiring, to be honest.

Gravel: Let’s just say I’ll bite my tongue.

Presidential Bits of Tid: May 29, 2007

75 weeks from now, America will elect its 44th President and its 47th Vice President. But before we get to that, I'd be remiss if I didn't mention an important birthday.

That handsome young man in the photo was born ninety years ago today, May 29, 1917.

You may know that at 43, Ted Kennedy's brother was the youngest person ever elected President (Teddy Roosevelt became President at age 42 after William McKinley was assassinated). You may noty know that Bill Clinton was just 46 when he was elected in 1992. Barack Obama will turn 47 in August 2008, at which time John Edwards will be 55. Now who's the youngster? ;-)

Turning our attention back to those who wish to count themselves among JFK's successors:

• Many of Obama's supporters say that, like JFK, he symbolizes hope - hope that a black person can become President, hope for an end to the era of bitter partisanship, hope for, well, better days and years ahead. Critics say he's all style and no substance. While certainly no one can doubt that he has inspired a great many people, I must say his issues page is the most comprehensive of any of the candidates' issues pages.
  
  
• Look what John Edwards wants to do for our servicemen and women. The entire plan is great, but I especially like his "Plan for Coming Home" and Military Families Advisory Board ideas.
  
  
• Bill Richardson is known among the 2008 hopefuls for being probably the most experienced of the 2008 hopefuls But he also has a lighter side:
  
  

  "My favorite team has always been the Red Sox. I'm also a Yankees fan... This is the thing about me. I can bring people together."

• Does Hillary have a front-runner for VP?
  
  

  Former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack "has assumed a role in Sen. Hillary Clinton's Presidential campaign unlike any of the New York Democrat's other national advisers. He campaigns for her in Iowa and other key states, spends hours each week on the phone with donors and elected officials and has helped forge policy ideas Clinton presents on the campaign trail," the Des Moines Register reports.
  
  "In this way, Vilsack has made the quick and seemingly effortless transition from a one-time Clinton rival for the 2008 nomination to a go-to player in her campaign. Aides acknowledge privately that Vilsack's work for the campaign has the look of a rehearsal for the role of running mate, should Clinton win the nomination."

  
  I'll be honest: A Hillary/Vilsack ticket doesn't appeal to me very much.
  
  
• On the other side of the aisle, Sam Brownback is having trouble in his home state, taking just 18% in solidly red Kansas.

Bits of Tid: May 12, 2007

In 13,000 hours we should have a president-elect.

• It's time to de-authorize the war, say Biden, Richardson, and Clinton.
• Some big names are backing Chris Dodd's energy plan.
• The governors of Maryland and New Jersey are endorsing Hillary.
• Edwards is proposing an $8 billion program to make college more affordable. A drop in the bucket compared to the $425.1 billion price tag for the war.
• On the other side, Rudy Giuliani and Ann Romney (Mitt's wife) have both donated to Planned Parenthood. And you thought Rudy was the only pro-choice Republican out there?
• State Senators Alan Cropsey (who 'represents' Mount Pleasant) and Bill Hardiman (ex-mayor of my hometown of Kentwood) have each been featured recently in Michigan Liberal's Better Know an Obstriutionist series. (Don't forget to let your state legislators know your thoughts onm the state budget!)
• I don't care about the whole Paris Hilton thing, so shut up, media.

John Edwards: I'd Invest Billions in Michigan

My stock in Edwards is climbing.

The U.S. government should invest billions to help Michigan become the hub for transforming the nation's energy economy, Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards said Saturday.

Speaking to more than 1,800 Democrats at the annual Jefferson Jackson dinner at Cobo Center in Detroit, Edwards said he'd like to see Michigan evolve.

"We should put billions of dollars into creation of the new technology and $1 billion should go right to the car companies," he said. "I don't want to see the cars of the future built anywhere else."

With the first primary elections nine months away, Edwards consistently trails U.S. Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama in public opinion polls about the Democratic contenders for the White House. But he struck a popular theme with the labor-heavy audience.

Best wishes to Elizabeth Edwards

Each of the Democratic presidential candidates has released statements surrounding the recent news that Elizabeth Edwards's cancer has spread to her bones.

Joe Biden:

“I am truly sorry to learn that Elizabeth Edwards has had a recurrence of her cancer. However, I am pleased to hear that Elizabeth and John are optimistic and moving forward. Elizabeth, John and their children are in our thoughts and prayers.”

Hillary Clinton:

"Elizabeth is a wonderful, strong individual and my thoughts and prayers are with her, John, and their children during this difficult time. I admire her optimism and strength in the face of adversity, and I look forward to seeing them both on the campaign trail."

Chris Dodd:

"Jackie and I wish Elizabeth, John and the entire Edwards family the best during this difficult time and throughout Elizabeth's treatment process. Our prayers are with all of them."

Elizabeth Kucinich, wife of Dennis Kucinich:

Dennis and I wish Elizabeth and John Edwards and their family the very best as Mrs. Edwards continues her courageous battle with cancer.

She has shown true strength and dignity in addressing this disease. We admire her courage and her spirit.

We are confident that Mrs. Edwards will continue to play a vigorous role in this campaign.

I look forward to seeing her on the campaign trail as she and I and our husbands all work towards our visions for building a better America.

Barack Obama:

"Today, Michelle and I join every American in sending our thoughts and prayers to Elizabeth and John and the entire Edwards family. We all admire Elizabeth’s strength and determination and the deep love they so obviously share."

Bill Richardson:

“Barbara and I send our thoughts and prayers to Elizabeth and John as they deal with this latest challenge. Elizabeth has been an inspiration and role model to all of us with her courageous and very public fight against breast cancer.

I am hopeful and optimistic that Elizabeth will continue to win her fight. In the meantime, we should all redouble our commitment to supporting efforts to find a cure for breast cancer.”

Iraq and Iran - a few things you can do

If you're feeling helpless about the situation in Iraq and Iran, I have a few quick things you can do to voice your opinion.

• Senator Barack Obama – who opposed going to war in Iraq back in 2002 (though he was only a state senator back then) – has introduced the Iraq War De-Escalation Act.

  The Iraq War De-Escalation Act makes U.S. policy crystal clear. It stops the escalation now and begins a redeployment to bring U.S. combat forces out of Iraq by March 31, 2008.

  You can become a 'citizen co-sponsor' by signing the petition here.


• Wes Clark, meanwhile, has started a new website, StopIranWar.com.

  Cannot the world’s most powerful nation deign speak to the resentful and scheming regional power that is Iran? Can we not speak of the interests of others, work to establish a sustained dialogue, and seek to benefit the people of Iran and the region? Could not such a dialogue, properly conducted, begin a process that could, over time, help realign hardened attitudes and polarizing views within the region? And isn’t it easier to undertake such a dialogue now, before more die, and more martyrs are created to feed extremist passions?

  Please join the Iraq War veterans at VoteVets.org and me and sign the petition to President Bush today. Military force against Iran is not the solution now, and if we adopt the right strategy, perhaps it need never be. Urge him to work with our allies and use every diplomatic, political, and economic option at our disposal to deal with Iran. War is not the answer.

• You can also sign a petition at John Edwards's site demanding that Congress not fund the escalation.
• And be sure to check out Joe Biden's PlanForIraq.com and NoMoreTroops.com.

For the sake of our troops and our country, please take a few minutes to make your voice heard regarding the situation in the Middle East. America is depending on us.

Newsweek poll: 2008 race is a toss-up; Americans trust Democrats and want change in Iraq

Newsweek's numbers don't lie.

When Americans were asked if they would rather see a Democrat or a Republican in the White House two years from now, Democrats lead by 21%. However, when you add names to the mix, it's very close: Hillary leads John 'Surge' McCain - I mean, John Sidney McCain - by one point, while Obama leads McCain by two points and Edwards by five. Giuliani beats Hillary by a point and Obama by two, while Edwards outpolls Rudy by three.

No surprise, Bush's approval rating is 31%. (Then how the heck do 41% believe he's a strong and ethical leader???) On another note, while only 36% approve of how the new Democratic-controlled Congress is doing, just 23% disapprove.

Regarding Iraq: By a nearly 2:1 ratio, voters trust Democrats to make better decisions on Iraq than Bush. They also believe, by a nearly 3:1 ratio, that the US is losing ground in Iraq, and by a more than 2:1 ratio they say the Iraq War has not made America safer from terrorism. And of course, America continues to say no to the surge.

Got that, Washington?

America says NO to Bush's proposed 'surge'

An AP poll says 70% of Americans say President Bush's proposed 'surge' in troops being sent to Iraq is a bad idea. That includes 56% of conservatives.

Wesley Clark thinks it's a bad idea:

The recent congressional elections - which turned over control of both houses to the Democrats - were largely a referendum on President Bush, and much of the vote reflected public dissatisfaction with the war in Iraq. Most Americans see the US effort as failing, and believe that some different course of action must be taken. Most favour withdrawing forces soon, if not immediately. The report of the Iraq Study Group is widely seen as a formal confirmation of US failure in Iraq.

...

What the surge would do, however, is put more American troops in harm's way, further undercut US forces' morale, and risk further alienation of elements of the Iraqi populace. American casualties would probably rise, at least temporarily, as more troops are on the streets; we saw this when the brigade from Alaska was extended and sent into Baghdad last summer. And even if the increased troop presence initially intimidates or frustrates the contending militias, it won't be long before they find ways to work around the obstacles to movement and neighbourhood searches, if they are still intent on pursuing the conflict. All of this is not much of an endorsement for a troop surge that will impose real pain on the already overstretched US forces.

...

The truth is that, however brutal the fighting in Iraq for our troops, the underlying problems are political. Vicious ethnic cleansing is under way right under the noses of our troops, as various factions fight for power and survival. In this environment security is unlikely to come from smothering the struggle with a blanket of forces - it cannot be smothered easily, for additional US efforts can stir additional resistance - but rather from more effective action to resolve the struggle at the political level. And the real danger of the troop surge is that it undercuts the urgency for the political effort. A new US ambassador might help, but, more fundamentally, the US and its allies need to proceed from a different approach within the region. The neocons' vision has failed.

So does John Edwards:

"George Bush's expected decision to adopt the McCain Doctrine and escalate the war in Iraq is a grave mistake.

"The new Congress must intercede to stop Bush from stubbornly sticking to the same failed course in Iraq and refuse to authorize funding for an escalation of troops. They should make it clear to the President that he will not get any money to put more of our troops in harm's way until he provides a plan to turn responsibility of Iraq over to the Iraqi people and to ultimately leave Iraq. George Bush wants to dig a deeper hole, but we need to climb out.

"The situation in Iraq demands a political solution — the Iraqi people must take responsibility for their country. Escalating the war in Iraq, which our own generals agree won't help, sends the wrong message to the Iraqi people, to the region, and the world. In order to get the Iraqis to take responsibility for their country, we must show them that we are serious about leaving, and the best way to do that is to actually start leaving and immediately withdraw 40–50,000 troops. Once the U.S. starts leaving, the Iraqi people and other regional powers will be forced to step up and engage in the search for a political solution that can bring an end to sectarian violence and allow reconstruction to take hold, creating — as should have been done long ago — Iraqi jobs for Iraqis."

Not to mention Carl Levin:

“An escalation of American troops is a flawed strategy for two reasons: it implies that there is a military solution to the violence when what’s needed is a political solution among the Iraqi leaders, and it suggests that the future of Iraq is in our hands not theirs.

“More promises by the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own future and more statements by the President on the need for doing so are no substitute for U.S. actions to force political compromises by the Iraqis. The President did not set benchmarks for the Iraqis that have hard deadlines and clear consequences for failure.

“The President's long-overdue words are that we are ending the open-ended commitment to Iraq, but the reality is that he is sending the opposite message to the Iraqis by putting more American military men and women in the middle of Iraqi sectarian violence.

Of course, John McCain thinks the surge is a great idea.

With so many Americans saying the surge is the wrong way to go, is it any wonder Rasmussen says Bush's approval rating is the lowest it's ever been?

A first look at Election 2008

For the first time since 1952, neither the incumbent President nor the incumbent VP will be a nominee for the White House. After Dick Cheney announced early in his Vice Presidency that he wouldn't run for President, many analysts have predicted that the 2008 White House race was as open as it has been in a while. In other words, it is hard to tell who could be the 44th President (as opposed to 2000, when Gore and Bush were the favorited to become their parties' nominees).

So who's running? Who's not? Who's on the fence? (Asterisk denotes those who have run for president in the past; two asterisks mean they have run for President twice)

Who's in?

The following candidates have announced their candidacies for President or have filed to form what is called an exploratory committee: (Asterisk denotes those who have run for president in the past)

Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE)*
Fmr. Sen. John Edwards (D-NC)*
Fmr. Sen. Mike Gravel (D-AK)
Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH)*
Gov. Bill Richardson (D-NM)
Outgoing Gov. Tom Vilsack (D-IA)
Fmr. Gov. Jim Gilmore (R-VA)
Fmr. Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R-NY)
Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS)
Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA)
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)*
Outgoing Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA)
Fmr. HHS Sec. Tommy Thompson (R-WI)

Who's Out?

The following people have said they will not run for President in 2008.

Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN)
Fmr. Sen. Tom Daschle (D-SD)
Fmr. Gov. Howard Dean (D-VT)*
Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI)
Fmr. VP. Al Gore (D-TN)**
Fmr. Gov. Mark Warner (D-VA)
Gov. Haley Barbour (R-MS)
Outgoing Gov. Jeb Bush (R-FL)
Outgoing Sen. Bill Frist (R-TN)
Sec. of State Condoleezza Rice (R-CA)
Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R-MN)
Gov. Mark Sanford (R-SC)

Who's on the fence? (And I don't mean the miles-long fence along the Mexican Border)

The following people may or may not run in 2008.

Gen. Wesley Clark (Ret.), US Army (D-AR)* - Prediction: Will run.
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) - Prediction: Will not run. (You heard it here first.)
Sen. John Kerry (D-MA)* - Prediction: Will run.
Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) - Prediction: Will not run.
Fmr. Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-GA) - Prediction: Will run.
Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) - Prediction: Will run.