PSoTD

Kos just posted his first Reader Poll since John Edwards withdrew.

Jan 24
Edwards 42
Obama 41
HRC 9

Jan 30
Obama 76
HRC 11

The Minions of the Great Orange Satan have spoken!

Did John McCain trademark that phrase or something? Seems like I can't see a clip of him now without him throwing it around somewhere.

It is amazing how unusable that site has become. Some college ought to be teaching a course over the last 8 years of that web site called "Evolution of a Propaganda Site".

He deserved WAY better treatment than he got from the press as far as depth and totality of coverage was concerned, and if only the press had been less "Inside Hollywood" about their approach and more "Inside Governance", this election could have been completely different. But we can say that every election. I think the linked article does give Edwards due credit for his push of issues into the race - and into both parties' primaries. But now the question is, with Edwards seemingly out of the race, will those issues - and the approach of taking on existing powers, rather than dealing with them - disappear as well?

I hope not. The tendency amongst politicians to scorn Edwards' points about corporate political power as "populism", instead of admitting it as an electoral power reality, is very discouraging to me. Those scornful politicians are not intending, and will not eventually, solve the problems that come with the gross imbalance of power between institutions and the flexible mass of like-minded individuals. We need people who will tackle the issue of big money, big lobbying, and the sense of a "governing class". These other people, those who scorn that very idea? They need to be washed out of the system, as quickly as possible.

So cheers to you, John Edwards. Perhaps you have decided that the best way to push your planks at this point are to leave them available to the two remaining contenders, and let them show the voters how much they believe in them, rather than have them argue against you. You open the field this way. I would have liked to have voted for you, but I still intend to vote for the candidate that seems most aligned on my positions on corporate/institutional political power and the Iraq War. It's down to two, now.

Is it coincidence? Florida's primary delegates go to the candidate who derided "Bridge to Nowhere" the most in Florida's Republican Candidate Debate last Thursday:

Election Results:

1st - McCain
2nd - Romney
3rd - Giuliani

Number of mentions of the Bridge to Nowhere in last Thursday's debate in Florida:

McCain - 4 times
Romney - 1 time
Giuliani - 0 times

Note to Romney - start loudly hating on the Bridge to Nowhere if you want to win the nomination. Don't worry about making Hulk Angry.

I have a Kennedy story! In the summer of 79, my ex-girlfriend from high school was house-sitting in Georgetown for one of the Kennedy clan. (I think - but am not positive - it was Ted's wife Joan.) At the time, my ex was a college student in Pittsburgh and I was living in South Carolina. We hadn't had much contact but somehow or other she invited me to visit her there. I don't remember much about the visit except that she was staying on the top floor of the house and that I made her listen to the new "London Calling" album by the Clash more times than I'm sure she wanted to. No Kennedys were home and my ex and I did not reconcile. (Hi DeeDee, wherever you are!) End of Kennedy story.

Yesterday, Ted Kennedy endorsed Barack Obama and I'm kind of impressed. I don't remember much about John or Bobby other than their murders. The only real memory I have of JFK's assassination is an imprint of how upset all the adults were. However I have plenty of memories of Ted back before the right wing wackos turned him into a caricature (with some help from Ted). There was a time he actually did seem like he could take the torch from his older brothers and become President. I still have respect for the man because of the issues he has fought for in the Senate over the years. I don't know the inside baseball involved but it really surprised me to see him take sides against HRC. It makes me more comfortable with Obama. For me, this was an important endorsement.

The Republican candidates appear to have similar taste in music to PSoTD.

As Mitt Romney made his weeklong crisscross through Florida, his campaign aides put a few songs into heavy rotation: Journey’s “Don’t Stop Believing” - a favorite, by the way, of Hillary Clinton’s - and Elvis Presley’s “A Little Less Conversation.” The latter, said Florida campaign director Mandy Fletcher, was picked because “the idea is that there’s too much conversation in Washington, not enough doing. He’s a doer.”

Also frequently queued up on the portable stereo: Bachman-Turner Overdrive’s “Aint’ Seen Nothing Yet,” played so often that members of the traveling press corps, some of whom have been tailing Romney since Labor Day, have taken to wearily chanting the song’s refrain - “buh-buh-buh-baby” - while hunched over their laptops.

Giuliani made the score to the appropriately titled “Rudy” - a movie about a pint-sized Notre Dame football player overcoming the odds - a fixture throughout his campaign.

But this week, as polls showed Giuliani trailing frontrunners McCain and Romney, his campaign swapped out the stately instrumental at a recent event with the more dynamic “The Best of Both Worlds” - the Van Halen song, not the Miley Cyrus tune of the same title, Hannah Montana fans being presumably too young to vote.

“Music is a useful tool to instill emotion in a person,” said Shelton Berg, dean of the University of Miami Frost School of Music. “If you hit a demographic with a song that reminds them of a time in their lives, their aspirations, you plug into that in a powerful way.”

In a chat with reporters on the campaign’s Florida press bus, McCain admitted to a liking for ABBA.

“You can go everywhere, and it’s like, `Oh ABBA, I can’t stand them,’ but they happen to have sold more records than anybody,” McCain said.

His pick: “Take a Chance.”

No "Dream Weaver"?

Governor Knoll.

If this were a fifty percent African American country, Barack Obama would be our next President.

Frankly, the guy underwhelms me on substance but I don't watch television so I'm sure I'm missing out on his style points. Digby says it's all about the youth vote but I guess I'm not in touch with that demographic either.

I'll have no problem voting for Barack in November but I haven't decided yet who I'll be voting for in the primary.

An outsider can look at this story and say, "If Hillary Clinton's political party, and Democratic Party candidates, cannot trust her to keep up her agreement, why should any voter trust her?"

She can say all she wants about disenfranchising voters in Michigan and Florida, and I agree with her to a point, but there was a time and a place to stake her position to that point, she didn't do it, and everyone else - including the voters of Michigan - acted accordingly based on the agreed rules. Either voters, and Democrats, can trust Hillary Clinton at her word, or they can't. It's up to her to prove it, one way or another. She's failing to prove trustworthiness here.

Who keeps whispering "Raise taxes"? Is it subliminal Republican advertising? Is it some sort of Kevin Nealon inspired effort, saying one thing but saying the truth in the middle?

Who is the Tax Whisperer?

It may not be bin Laden, or Al Qaeda, or even Hillary Clinton. It may be Republican Senator Ted Stevens. I'm waiting for the transcript of last night's debate to count the references to "bridge to nowhere".

You know, if she can't shut him up in the campaign, how can Hillary shut him up if she's President? This kind of feeding of the media of the most general identity politics is very sad, particularly because you know that somehow the Clintons see an advantage to it.

Bill Clinton has a reputation as a President that he's clearly on his way to crapping all over as a candidate's spouse. He's become the most obnoxious spouse out there as far as I can tell.

I wonder if John McCain becomes the nominee for the Republicans this year for President, that we might see the former Governor of Pennsylvania, Tom Ridge, named as his VP candidate. If there's one major electoral eastern state that might be snaggable for the Republicans this year, Pennsylvania would probably be it, but only if Ridge were there to help. He's a pretty popular former Governor in this state, he could contrast his "good times" tenure versus the Democratic leadership of Ed Rendell, and his military and Homeland Security experience probably could be used beneficially.

There are no other Pennsylvania Republicans that would help McCain. Period.

What a sad story the domain politics.com has become. Check out a few of it's past iterations, courtesy of the Wayback Machine:

December 21, 1997
November 10, 2000
August 13, 2001
December 31, 2003
November 1, 2004

And then finally, on July 20, 2006, where we are today:

Backflip Domains is currently interested in purchasing high quality generic domain names that do not infringe on anyone's intellectual property rights such as politics.com, cookie.com, and on.com.

If you have such domains for sale please email us below and include asking price(s). We are also interested in purchasing entire domain portfolios.

Due to volume we can not respond to all messages. We will respond to all offers that meet our quality and price requirements.

All transactions are conducted through a secure escrow process to protect both parties.

Contact us at: domaincookie@yahoo.com

Sure seems like it could have worked out much better than that.

One of the things about corporate citizenship, and the information you can find out about the concept online, is that they seem to be quid pro quo. Give something to get something. This consulting firm is an example of such writing:

By providing practical solutions to the contemporary problems facing industry related to globalization, sustainability practices, and corporate accountability, CCI facilitates measurable success by connecting western based companies with valuable options to take greater advantage of local markets.

The vision for CCI was born from decades of field experience that took its founder, Kim Veness across much of the developing world. Working in grassroots level sustainability programs with indigenous peoples around the world, and watching their interactions with western business interests, a vision was conceived – to use the emerging marketplace as a driver for sustainable social development while creating profits for business.

I'm for businesses making money, but there needs to be a driver for the argument of citizenship for citizenship's sake, and that driver will not be coming from the business community. As long as profitability is a standard for corporate citizenship, we'll find a very murky environment to define the term.

Citizens have to coalesce and work together to define the concept sans corporations.

His name? CNN Reporter Joe Johns.

JOHNS: Right. The Nobel Prize-winning African-American author, Toni Morrison, famously observed about Bill Clinton, "This is our first black president, blacker than any actual black person who could ever be elected in our children's lifetime."

Do you think Bill Clinton was our first black president?

That would be an appropriate question to ask Toni Morrison. Maybe that would be an appropriate question to ask Joe Johns, since he thought it was worth asking. But in a debate season in which we have seen at least a couple of moronic questions in every debate, to me, at least, this has been the worst.

Questioners should see themselves as having a responsibility, and that responsibility is this: By asking this question, what can voters get from the response that can tell them something valuable about the candidate(s) that may assist in their voting decision? That is the pure smell test.

Johns' question failed, because it doesn't go to policy, it doesn't go to philosophy, it doesn't go to outlook, it doesn't go to anything other than grading a former President on a freaking racial basis. Appalling.

Obama fumbled around with an answer, but frankly, I'm waiting for a candidate eventually to say at a debate, "That's really quite a silly question and a waste of valuable debate time, and I'm going to pass on answering it because I think there's much more important things to discuss."

I can't say I'm particularly informed about the process of how Martin Luther King Day became a national holiday, but I believe that in order for a holiday to be deemed as "religious", it ought to start as a religious holiday, rather than start as a government-observed holiday. I recognize that King was clergy, but that alone does not make celebration of his life and accomplishments a "religious" celebration.

It should, however, be a day to fully expand our humanity towards others.

More on corporate citizenship:

Above all, a new imperative for business, best described as "global corporate citizenship," must be recognized. It expresses the conviction that companies not only must be engaged with their stakeholders but are themselves stakeholders alongside governments and civil society. International business leaders must fully commit to sustainable development and address paramount global challenges, including climate change, the provision of public health care, energy conservation, and the management of resources, particularly water. Because these global issues increasingly impact business, not to engage with them can hurt the bottom line. Because global citizenship is in a corporation's enlightened self-interest, it is sustainable. Addressing global issues can be good both for the corporation and for society at a time of increasing globalization and diminishing state influence.

I can't tell you what the rest of the report by Klaus Schwab says because it's for fee, but again, what is missing from this paragraph, at least, is the standard and expectation by individual citizens of corporate behavior. That's not a complaint about this report. It's a recognition that there needs to be a discussion and a debate by citizens at a particular level that corporate behavior has impact, and standards and expectations relayed to corporations BY THE CITIZENRY. The argument that the market will tell corporations what is good and bad behavior is an exercise in relativism between markets - what is good for employees may be not so fun for stockholders, what might be good for India is bad for South Dakota - and doesn't try to adopt some expectation of fairness.

Until told, corporations are free to adopt their own standards for "corporate citizenship". There needs to be a model for individuals to state their expectations collectively and effectively.

I see this as a positive, in general, the work of Boston College Center for Corporate Citizenship. And it is important. But there's also a point of perspective that has to be remembered here:

It's corporate, and it's somewhat top down, and the individual is rarely mentioned as the discussion is about citizen amongst institutions.

And you can see it in the way thing are discussed, that this can be construed to be a search to find "what is good for the corporation in corporate citizenship". There's nothing wrong with that by itself, but it is a partial effort. There needs to be an equal effort:

What is good for the individual citizen in corporate citizenship?

I'd like to see university work towards this goal. I realize that individual citizens won't likely pony up the money to create or continue such a Center, so financing is an issue. But maybe there's a way to put something together like this, and maybe it's something that ex-politicians who see the need for this, because they were always railing about corporate lobbyists in Washington, can try to build.

Found this via Geeky Mom. I still strongly prefer Edwards to Obama, however.

83% Barack Obama
80% Mike Gravel
80% John Edwards
79% Dennis Kucinich
77% Joe Biden
77% Bill Richardson
76% Chris Dodd
75% Hillary Clinton
40% John McCain
38% Rudy Giuliani
37% Ron Paul
32% Mitt Romney
29% Mike Huckabee
25% Tom Tancredo
21% Fred Thompson

2008 Presidential Candidate Matching Quiz

Maybe it'll be a little more even in the number of questions asked per candidate. Can't MSNBC even try to provide some parity in question numbers?

These debates are like watching surrogate boxing. Questions from the news media are intended to fulfill the media's need, not the voters and not the candidates. I don't, and we shouldn't, care about the news media's need to be able to run 10 second "gotcha" clips like the dishonest effort that Tim Russert made both during and after the debate last night about keeping troops in Iraq. Well, I guess we should care that Tim Russert is more interested in his advantage than the country's when asking questions, but that's not a surprise to anyone who pays attention.

Here's a great question Edwards asked Obama:

Well, let me start this question. This is about campaign finances. And let me start it by saying the obvious, which is, all three of us have raised a great deal of money in this campaign, so this is not preachy or holier-than-thou in any possible way.

What we know is that all three of us want to do something about health care in this country. We also know that until recently, Senator Clinton had raised more money from drug companies and insurance companies than any candidate, Democrat or Republican, until you passed her, Senator Obama, recently to go to number one.

My question is, do you think these people expect something for this money?

Why do they give it? Do they think that it's for good government? Why do they do it?

The answer wasn't good.

SEN. OBAMA: Well, let's be clear, John. I just want to make sure that we understand. I don't take money from federal lobbyists. I don't take money from PACs.

MR. EDWARDS: As I don't either.

SEN. OBAMA: As you don't either.

What happens is, is that you've got — if you've got a mid-level executive at a drug company or insurance company who is inspired by my message of change, and they send me money, then that's recorded as money from the drug or the insurance industry, even though it's not organized, coordinated or in any way subject to the problems that you see when lobbyists are given money. But — and I'm proud of the fact that I've raised more money from small donors than anybody else, and that we're getting 25, 50, $100 donations, and we've done very well doing it that way.

Now, what I'm also proud of is the fact that in reducing special interest lobbying, I alone of the candidates here have actually taken away the power of lobbyists. Part of the reason that you know who's bundling money for various candidates is because of a law I passed this year which says, lobbyists, if you are taking money from anybody and putting it together and then giving it to a member of Congress, that has to be disclosed. Ultimately what I'd like to see is a system of public financing of campaigns, and I'm a cosponsor of the proposal that's in the Senate right now.

That's what we have to fight for.

In the meantime, what I'm very proud of is to make sure that we continue to make progress at the federal level to push back the influence that lobbyists have right now. And that's something that I'm going to continue to work on.

However, I'm willing to give Obama a pass on this answer for now - I don't think the question was expected, and I don't think it is thought about outside the box much by either Obama or Clinton. But this question - and more delving questions - must be asked, and the issue should be probed within the context of the election. People vote their pocketbooks. There's a reason that so many in the insurance or drug companies are "inspired" by the message. What is it? The news media does not ask these kinds of questions. Obama's answer is really an indictment of the debate system and the news media - Presidential candidates are not asked these kinds of basic structural questions about how Washington operates, or to discuss the morals involved in that operation. Candidates are not forced to think about it. In fact, because questions are not continually asked about this area, candidates are forced NOT TO THINK ABOUT IT, and to think about the answers for the trivial items that will be asked, such as:

"Given the decision to run for president in the first place has to be and should be one of the most important and memorable decision-making moments any American can make, tell us when you made that decision."

I'm pretty sure that asking for a time frame for when they made the decision didn't help one voter make a decision for who they will vote.

I'd like to see a debate of ALL candidate questions to other candidates, and make the moderators ONLY moderators. No questions from the audience, no questions from the news media.

The never-ending "war vote" debate continues...

In interviews and at a recent campaign event, [the Clintons] have said that Mr. Hagel, Republican of Nebraska, helped draft the resolution, which they said was proof that the measure was more about urging Saddam Hussein to comply with weapons inspections, instead of authorizing combat.

Mrs. Clinton repeated the claim Sunday during an interview on “Meet the Press,” saying “Chuck Hagel, who helped to draft the resolution, said it was not a vote for war.”

“It was a vote to use the threat of force against Saddam Hussein, who never did anything without being made to do so,” Mrs. Clinton said.

That vote was no more a blank check for invading Iraq than a gun permit is a blank check to run around shooting up the town. The mistake was not having done an adequate background check on the guy we gave the gun to.

You know, I don't think there is such a thing.

Once we get past the primaries and to the general election, the issue of illegal immigration will be lobbed by the Republican candidate at the Democratic candidate. I think it will be useful to use the opportunity to discuss the greater issue of citizenship, and to try to bring the national debate towards that issue. I don't think we resolve the immigration discussion unless we come to a national understanding of the issue of citizenship. And to that extent, I think it should also be mandatory for the discussion to include consideration of what makes a good corporate citizen in the United States, and what Americans should expect of a good corporate citizen.

It's a political question that NEVER gets asked in those terms, and never gets discussed by a citizenship parameter. I'm pretty sure it is something that Edwards could sew into the conversation fairly effectively, and America would be the better for it. I'm very unclear as to whether Obama would bring it up successfully, and I have strong doubts that Hillary Clinton would even open such a debate.

And because of that, it would make sense to me that Edwards open that debate now, because he may not be around to finish it, but at least he's here to start it.

I have really mixed feelings about same-day-as-caucus voter registration for a party caucus. Seems like it really opens the opportunity for gaming the system and the results by members of another political party.

The Nevada Democratic Presidential Caucus will be held on Jan. 19. Doors will open at 11 a.m. at more than 1,000 sites throughout Nevada.

Participants sign in and their names are checked against the voter rolls.

People not registered to vote, nonpartisans, Republicans, and others may register as Democrats at the door.

There are likely to be none. It's not only because of his lack of frontrunner status.

Governors are usually the big campaign horse for a political party in a state, and for that party's fundraising efforts. Everything that Edwards talks about concerning lobbyist money, special interests, and how money gets represented much better than voters in Washington, DC., also applies to the state capitals, on a smaller scale.

Because of a Governor's position as the big fundraising source for a state political party, and because almost anyone elected Governor has taken advantage of the campaign funding structures to get there in the first place, it's incredibly unlikely that Edwards would ever get an endorsement from a Governor until after he was the nominee. If we saw Edwards get such an endorsement, it would be a strong sign that his populism on the subject was growing beyond the Presidential campaign level.

... but "some degree of coercion" is just fine!

Finally, what roils me about Sen. McCain on this issue is his demagoguery. None of us likes torture or even most lesser forms of coercion. There are times, though, when some degree of coercion is necessary — even Sen. McCain has acknowledged that.

There is actually a good reason to for the eventual Republican candidate for President to choose Joe Lieberman as the Vice Presidential candidate - as fall guy. If the Republicans know, deep down, that they are going to lose the Presidential Election in November, then they can get a twofer with Joementum - they can claim they tried "unity" as a campaign and it failed, which then can be argued for not diluting partisan message, and they can blame Lieberman specifically for the loss, and claim that it isn't a rejection of the Republican message, and live for another day with a better candidate in another election year. Actually, a three-fer, because that way no other future Republican candidate can be greatly stained with the election loss of 2008. Maybe Jack Kemp could better speak to that issue.

then the Lawrence O'Donnell would be the prize orchard variety.

I don't know what O'Donnell has against Edwards specifically, but I think the suggestion that to support Edwards is to support nothing other than the Southern white man who stood in the way of the black man, is so incredibly unfair to people who support his positions that I don't see why O'Donnell deserves to write any more for the Huffington Post. That is truly some thinking to despise.

I'm just asking.

I think this one has a lot of catches to it - meaning that the value of it isn't very clear. I can see Kerry's endorsement of Obama being a negative for Edwards, but I can also see it being a negative for Obama. Kerry is not seen as a change agent, and the last presidential campaign left him as damaged goods. But, perhaps in Massachusetts, it would do Obama some good against Clinton. And there's fundraising avenues.

There's really only one good "candidate" endorsement waiting out there - and that's Al Gore.

Why doesn't a reporter ask Bush what he means by the term "threat to world peace" when he accuses others of being one? Or just ask him what world peace he's talking about?

The impeachment petition. Don't we want to know any more?

I wonder if their members would appreciate having 5 foot graphic signs of slaughtered animals in front of church on Sunday. Or video of capital punishment. Or have Fred Phelps and company as guests of dishonor.

The last thing Sophia Crites expected to see on her way to church Sunday morning was a 5-foot image of an aborted fetus.

But there it was, at the intersection of U.S. 21 and S.C. 802 on Lady's Island, and her 6-year-old son saw it, too.

"He's been having nightmares," the Lady's Island resident said Tuesday. "He can't get it out of his mind."

The images and the people holding them appeared again Monday in front of the Chick-fil-A on Boundary Street and again Tuesday at the same Lady's Island intersection.

"It was a baby at 30 weeks of gestation," Crites said. "Very obviously dead, very covered in blood, very graphic."

The images of fetuses were accompanied by signs that said "Hillary's Holocaust," according to several people who said they saw them, an apparent reference to Hillary Clinton, a pro-choice presidential candidate. Also displayed were images of dead bodies and a sign that said "Hitler's Holocaust."

The local displays, which also included a stop on Hilton Head Island over the weekend, were a joint effort between Columbia Christians for Life, a South Carolina-based group led by Steve Lefemine, and Milwaukee-based Missionaries to the Preborn.

According to Columbia Christians for Life's Web site, the group is a "witness for the Lord Jesus Christ, empowered by the Holy Spirit, through establishing a faithful and compassionate Christian presence at the child-killing centers."

Randy McCoy, a St. Helena Island resident, hosted the anti-abortion group during its stay in Beaufort.

"We have a contingent of people not accustomed to seeing (those displays)," he said Tuesday night. "Children are always our biggest concern, but children need to know as well what an abortion looks like."

But several Beaufort County residents think this group was way off-base.

Kathy Hulbert, director at Sea Island Presbyterian Day School on Lady's Island, said she saw the signs when she headed into work at about 8:15 Tuesday morning.

"I appreciate the fact that we live in the U.S. and that they have the right to express their beliefs," said Hulbert, who says she's pro-life. "But at that time of the morning, many young children are going to school. It's very disturbing, and it's difficult for people to have to explain that to their children."

There are several schools and day cares within 2 miles of the U.S. 21/S.C. 802 intersection, including St. Peter's Catholic School.

"I've gotten some feedback about (the signs), and the feedback of course was not positive," said Bill Gabrielson, principal at St. Peter's. "I think while certainly the position of the school is strongly pro-life, there is a question of age-appropriateness to any kind of instruction. The posters certainly are not appropriate for young children."

Gabrielson said while he can "sympathize with the ends they have in mind, the means are not ones I can personally justify."

"There are ways to communicate messages that are important and pertinent without going to the point of seeing such unpleasant realities."

But McCoy, who said he showed the same images to his granddaughter when she was about 5 years old, disagrees.

"It's gotta be a shock to them, but somewhere along the line it has to be presented," he said.

Steve Troutman, owner of the Chick-fil-A on Boundary Street, said he received calls at home from angry customers when the protesters showed up on the sidewalk on U.S. 21 in front of his store.

"They were on the public right of way," he said. "But what is perceived was that we were supporting that, and nothing can be further from the truth."

There is something satisfying with having the "political professionals" look like they don't know shit when the results come in. Congratulations to Hillary - I don't like her as a candidate as much as I need to vote for her, but I dislike the media's design to deign a nominee after 2 or 3 states much more.

I do wonder if there's some blowback on Obama's "youth movement" that we saw last night. A lot of what we heard for the past few days was about bringing out the 18-24 year olds to vote, how they were going to change the landscape, that the baby boomers were getting moved over. It wasn't Obama saying this, just the simplistic news media, as usual. I really don't think that most over-24 voters really want the 18-24 year olds deciding who will be the next President. I don't think that message sits well - nor should we expect any message that says that a small subset of voters will determine the election in any year.

I've haven't made up my mind yet but I think it's beneficial to see the Obama / Clinton contest continue. Keep it on the up and up and may the best candidate win it all!

Plus she makes all the right wing wackos cry.

PS - See ya round, Mitt and Freddie!

I guess I don't have a problem with them starting as early as they have, but I think the bunching of them is very unhelpful to the process of electing a President that will serve for four years. Frankly, I think the problem is bad enough that it's worth investigating a Constitutional Amendment seeking to limit how many states can hold a Presidential primary in a given month. It's pretty clear that the states can't work out this process for themselves, and the problem will probably be so bad that we'll have a Super Tuesday type of event on the first week of primary season in 2012.

One of the questions that hasn't really been asked is what a John Edwards Presidency might mean for the future of Democratic Party campaign fundraising. If he were somehow to win the nomination and the general election, on a resource strategy of no PAC or special interest funding, then what impact would that have on Democratic Party campaigns for races at the Congressional, Gubernatorial and other levels in the future? Would it become some sort of standard?

We may not find out, but I'm surprised I haven't seen the discussion somewhere.

We actually watched it. My quick impressions:

Most importantly at this point, get Richardson off the stage. He had some of the funnier lines of the night, but 95% of his time talking is a waste of valuable debate time at this point. He's not going to get the nomination, and because of that anything he says about his "administration" is a nonstarter in the first place. And, I think debate performances like last night hurt, rather than help, his chances at being VP. He does not appear ready to lead this nation, which is an issue.

Which brings me to Hillary. Pretty good performance, although she clearly had trouble holding her temper when Obama and Edwards tag teamed her. However, those nuts are mixed in that bag she's holding called experience, and for every one that she can tout, there's another one that makes people groan. Still, I thought she mostly came off likeable, and perhaps capable of continuing her campaign as an underdog and still winning. But I did think she made the big mistake of the evening, which I'll post down below.

John Edwards, I still want to vote for you, but it's time to pivot from the emotional appeal to the specifics of your proposals in these debates. I know that big lobbying organizations and big institutions are powerfully manipulating the game in Washington. I hear that you want to take them on, and I believe that you will do this in a way much more active than any of the other candidates. I support that. Now I want to know how.

Obama - no mistakes last night. Almost always appeared thoughtful and, dare I say, presidential. I thought his line about "words do matter" as the best of the night. I thought that was the big gaffe of the night, too, by Hillary, when she tut-tutted powerful speech, because it was a bit of an insult to those who are following Obama, and it also implied that she didn't think the ability to build public force mattered.

The Wyoming Republican Party - Exercising in Futility.

I just don't think the fear strategy is going to serve Hillary well in New Hampshire or anywhere else during the primary season:

Clinton usually only talks about the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks when she speaks of her work helping Ground Zero workers cope with medical problems.

But in an airport hangar this morning, she said: "We have people who are plotting against us right now, getting ready to repeat the atrocity of Sept 11. We know it, I see the intelligence reports."

She also said, "I don’t think there has ever been a more important decision for the citizens of New Hampshire."

Only one thought comes to mind when reading that passage: puke.

Time's bearded blowhard considers Iowa a victory for civility.

Iowa's decision was about style, not substance. Obama didn't offer many new ideas and precious few that were different from his opponents'. He offered civility. At one point, Clinton tried "Turn Up The Heat" as her slogan and, throughout, John Edwards' rhetoric was so hot that it eventually burned him to a cinder. Obama's unspoken slogan was, "Turn Down the Heat." The blogger Daily Kos endorsed Obama at first then, frustrated by the lack of fire, un-endorsed him. The far left wing of the Democratic Party may have to re-think the value of vitriol now.

Atrios must be seething.

There's going to be a slugfest between Clinton and Obama over the next month. This could provide Edwards with an opportunity to be the likeable unattacked candidate with a progressive message. But that seems like about the only longshot chance he has. Money's likely to be a problem. The anti-Clinton vote is going to sway to Obama. The media is currently swooning for Obama.

In previous years, this vote status might have meant something:

Total pledged delegates assigned: 45
Unpledged delegates and pledged delegates yet to be assigned:5163

But I'm not sure it does this year.

Part of that was Obama's victory speech last night. It was a great speech, a transcendent speech. And people are looking for that. If he stays in that stratasphere for the next month, this race is over. I'm sure Clinton's advisors know this.

I'm sure Edwards' is in it until February 5th, at least. Kudos for Dodd and Biden for realizing the impossibility of their campaigns. I would suspect that Kucinich and Richardson won't be far behind.

One of the things I think is kinda BS about this Iowa Caucus today is the direction by candidates to their supporters on who to support if they're not viable at 15%. First Kucinich, now it might be Richardson. I know it's not a new thing, but I would hope that caucusers were supporting candidates for their positions and their personality, and the practice of telling voters who to vote for wouldn't be a position or a personality that I could remotely support. Kinda ugly effort at political control if you ask me.

I really hope that Edwards wins in Iowa today, and that translates into a competitive three person race for the foreseeable future. I'm much closer to the positions - and the belief in walking softly while carrying a big stick - that Edwards has been presenting, as opposed to Obama or Clinton. I'm not sure that this is a growing blogger sentiment, but I've been thinking this way for quite a while, but now that we're actually at the first primary event, I've decided to get off the fence. Part of it is that the deal isn't sealed for me completely, but I think Edwards deserves more time, more primary, and more focus to see if he can seal the deal.

How much longer can he run a campaign that basically says "vote for this other guy"?

Seriously, time to pull the plug at that point.

This is basically what Hillary Clinton is saying with this:

Clinton mocked Edwards's rising anger on the stump.

Taking on corporate domination of politics was not "something you have to do by yelling and screaming. Save your energy. Get the job done," she said.

I'm sorry, but Hillary Clinton is going to lose a one on one debate against John Edwards most of the time. Edwards made a career out of convincing people through speech and presentation to make a decision. He has made a career out of making people believe. Hillary Clinton has made a career out of claiming functionality. That is not going to win a debate.

Get the job done. Hillary Clinton exposes herself with this statement - she doesn't understand the job Edwards is talking about. How does a politician reduce the power of money in politics, and its corrupting influence, if that politician can't summon a power that may match it? John Edwards understands that many Americans - probably most Americans - are angry about how this country has been run for quite a while. We're angry about politicians wasting time getting changes made, we're angry about how benefits of governance seem to gravitate to the rich and powerful rather than spread throughout the populace, and we're angry about the ignorance of the very issues we want worked upon. And what stands in the way of these things happening? Existing power bases, with their existing power tool - money.

So John Edwards taps into that anger, because that's the strongest thing he has that can help him get to a point to make a change in government. Angry people take actions - sometimes rash, sometimes beneficial. Did the Berlin Wall come down because people saved their energy? No. Did America begin because people saved their energy? No.

There's a difference between feeding anger into a mob, and focusing anger towards positive change. I believe the latter is what Edwards is trying to do, and I believe that Hillary Clinton is opposed to it. I'm not sure if it's because she's afraid of change, or whether it's because she's been a beneficiary of the current system and change will wreck any future advancement she might attain. But when she mocks John Edwards, she mocks a sizeable amount of the population that thinks he's on the right track, and that can't possibly help her.