Thanks For All The Enthusiasm

I just wanted to thank everyone for all their hard work and enthusiasm and for being allowed to participate with such a great bunch of people. I know I didn't get a chance to travel this year, having a toddler kind of puts a crimp in your free time, but I really appreciated hearing all your stories of campaigning in the Iowa snow.

I am joining the Obama group now too, but whoever wins, let's stick together and make sure we Win The White House in '08!

Thanks,
Jim Ausman

From Jan Brown

Obviously I must be doing something wrong since I cannot get on the blog but please feel free to carry this message tonight. If the vote were today, I would vote for someone who addition to having the requisite experience also has the ability to promote his ideas, vision and has the personal touch to move Americans and therefore to move America. That candidate can win the presidency AND help increase the majority in the House and help make a real majority in the Senate. For me, that candidate, today, is John Edwards.

Please note that the Charlie's campaign is not endorsing any candidate at this time, this is my personal choice. Thank you for allowing us to be a part of this processs and I look forward to seeing you again soon.

Interesting Post from Nadine North re Edwards

What kind of battle for Democrats in 2008?

Referendum on future of the party, or magnifying minor differences?

By Tom Curry

National affairs writer

MSNBC

Updated: 11:35 a.m. CT April 25, 2007

WASHINGTON - Will the 2008 Democratic presidential contest resemble the one eight years ago when Al Gore and Bill Bradley had to magnify relatively minor differences between them in order to generate some heat?

Or will it look like the spectacular contest in 1968, a grand referendum on the future of the Democratic Party?

Thursday night’s debate among eight Democratic contenders will provide clues on the nature of the contest; in a crowded field, it will be hard to get viewers to remember the pungent phrase or stinging challenge by one rival to another.

In 1968, at a time of war like today, the anti-Vietnam War candidates, Eugene McCarthy, Robert Kennedy and George McGovern, backed by a generation of young activists, challenged first President Lyndon Johnson, forcing him out of the race, and then Vice President Hubert Humphrey.

It was a dramatic clash of old vs. new. Old won, as Humphrey got the nomination.

Referendum on Clintons
Due to Sen. Hillary Clinton’s prominence and her husband’s claims on the affections of Democrats, inevitably the 2008 contest will be something of a referendum on Bill and Hillary Clinton.

There have been famously political first ladies in the past, such as Eleanor Roosevelt. But history offers no precedents for how voters react to the wife of a former president running for his old job. Bill Clinton is a more naturally gifted campaigner than his wife, so it will be interesting to see how much the Clinton campaign uses his talents.

"He has been extremely popular with Democrats and even has some appeal to moderate Republicans. He has an inherently likeable personality, but popularity is not transferable," said Republican consultant Scott Howell. "You either like her, or you don't like her."

Campaigns are about issues as well as personalities. And this year, on many issues the Democratic contenders do largely agree: for instance, all four Democratic senators who are running for the nomination, Clinton, Sen. Barack Obama, Sen. Chris Dodd, and Sen. Joe Biden, voted against confirming Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Supreme Court nominees Samuel Alito and John Roberts. All four voted to try to block confirmation of Alito by filibustering his nomination.

When John Edwards served in the Senate in 2003, he joined Clinton, Biden, and Dodd in voting to filibuster the nominations of President Bush’s conservative appeals court nominees such as Miguel Estrada.

Small differences?
A primary campaign such as 2000 in which the contenders don’t widely diverge on many issues is likely to end up being acrid and personal, as 2000 was.

Accusing Gore of running misleading ads about him, Bradley asked his rival during a debate before the New Hampshire primary, “Why should we believe you will tell the truth as president, if you don’t tell the truth as a candidate?”

Bradley likened Gore to Richard Nixon. “When Al accuses me of negative campaigning, it reminds me of the story about Richard Nixon … [he] was the kind of politician who would chop down a tree and then stand on the stump and give a speech about conservation.” In return, Gore accused Bradley of trying to “manufacture a distinction” about their stands on abortion.

Bradley’s strategy didn’t work: he lost the New Hampshire primary, essentially ending his bid for the nomination.

This year, many analysts see Iraq as the deciding factor in the Democratic contest.

“Candidates debate issues, but they clash on war,” said Jano Cabrera, a Democratic strategist. “While 2008 won’t be a repeat of 1968 — when the nation was torn not just by Vietnam but by a variety of social changes, most prominently the civil rights struggle – the debates this cycle hold the potential to be sharper than any we’ve seen in recent years.”

How they handle the Iraq question
Cabrera, who worked for Sen. Joe Lieberman’s presidential campaign in 2004 and who isn’t currently supporting any of the contenders, added, “With a strong anti-war sentiment among Democratic primary voters, in particular in Iowa, there’s a real incentive among the field to control the debate on Iraq."

Cabrera said, "Obama would prefer for it to center on who supported the war initially and who didn’t, a framing that leaves him standing alone. Edwards would rather highlight that he has renounced his war vote, a contrast that helps him against Sen. Clinton. And Clinton would rather talk about what the nation must do next on Iraq, and underscore that on that issue there’s a nary a difference between the field.”

As implied in Cabrera’s assessment, it will difficult for the less-famous contenders such as Dodd and Biden to break into news media and polling prominence.

Biden will continually point to his detailed plan for division of Iraq into three largely autonomous regions, Shiite, Sunni and Kurd, "with a strong but limited central government in Baghdad."

And he'll press his rivals on why they do not offer similarly detailed proposals for the future of the country.

Populism versus the Establishment?
Democratic strategist David Sirota, said, “I do think this debate is a grand referendum on the future of the party. In no uncertain terms, it will decide whether the Democratic Party stands for cults of personality and elite Big Money donors, or for working-class Americans.”

Sirota, who has warm praise for Edwards, said, “The candidates present very different agendas and very different campaigns. The main event, of course, will be between Clinton, Obama and Edwards, but while there are three of them, this is really a binary division. Clinton and Obama pretty much represent Establishment Washington. Their campaigns are staffed by insiders (many former Clintonites), their economic agendas are being shaped by Big Business, and their financial bases on Wall Street are essentially the same.”

He added, “Edwards, by contrast, is running a populist outsider campaign.... Edwards has staked his campaign on core issues of economic class. In the process, he is forcing a debate on trade and globalization that Clinton, Obama and Wall Street in general do not want to have, but which more and more Americans realize are central to this country's economic future.”

If contests of the past are any guide, the television ad war this fall and winter will often focus on past roll call votes, with rivals challenging each other on why they voted as they did: if Edwards, for instance, makes opposition to globalization and free trade the theme of his campaign, his rivals’ ads may well ask, “Why did you vote for the 2000 PNTR trade deal with China, the country with which the United States has its biggest trade deficit?”

As in the 1968 contest, American soldiers and Marines will still be on the battlefield as Iowa and New Hampshire Democrats cast the first votes of the year next January. Iraq and the consequences of withdrawal may well overshadow China, trade and all other issues.

The view from a centrist
Sen. Mark Pryor, D-Ark., a centrist who is neutral in the presidential fray and who must run on the same ticket with the Democratic presidential nominee next year in a state Bush carried twice, said Tuesday, “Iraq will be a huge issue throughout the 2008 cycle. This president has made it clear he’s not getting out of Iraq. It’ll be up the next president to do it.”

But Pryor said it is too early to tell exactly how Iraq will define the Democratic contest, but the whole Persian Gulf region is at stake.

“I don’t know if it really becomes ‘who has the best plan to get us out?’ or more of a ‘how do we stabilize the whole region and Iraq is big part of that?’ to ‘Iran is trying to go nuclear.’ I don’t know how it plays out,” Pryor said. “Some of that depends on the circumstances on the ground in Iraq.”

So whatever answers you may hear Thursday night from the Democratic contenders, they are likely to need to address a different and perhaps far worse regional picture six or eight months from now.

Edward's Energy Plan

Achieving Energy Independence & Stopping Global Warming Through a New Energy Economy

“Our generation must be the one that says, ‘we must halt global warming.’ Our generation must be the one that says ‘yes’ to renewable fuels and ends forever our dependence on foreign oil. And our generation must be the one that builds the new energy economy. It won’t be easy, but it is time to ask the American people to be patriotic about something other than war.” – John Edwards

Our generation must be the one that ends our nation’s dependence on oil and ushers in a new energy economy. We need energy independence from unstable and hostile areas of the world, from global warming pollution, and from the old ways of doing business. If we harness American ingenuity to reach for transformative change, we can emerge from the crisis of global warming with a new energy economy that stimulates innovation, brings the family farm back to life, and creates more than

1 million jobs in America’s farms and industries. Today, John Edwards called for America to embrace three great goals for this generation:

ü Halt global warming by capping and reducing greenhouse gas pollution and leading the world to a new global climate change treaty.

ü Create a new energy economy and 1 million new jobs by investing in clean, renewable energy, sparking innovation, a new era in American industry, and life in family farms.

ü Meet the demand for new electricity through efficiency for the next decade, instead of producing more power.

As a result of the Edwards plan, by 2025 America will import 7.5 million fewer barrels of oil a day, produce 65 billion gallons of ethanol and other biofuels a year, generate 25 percent of our electricity from renewable sources, and produce more than 2 billion fewer tons of carbon dioxide emissions a year. Within a generation, America’s cars and tracks will be virtually petroleum-free.

Halting Global Warming by Capping Carbon Emissions

The planet has gotten nearly 1 degree Fahrenheit hotter over the past 30 years and will get another degree hotter due to greenhouse gas pollution already in the atmosphere. The ten hottest years on record have all occurred since 1990. If we don’t change course soon, we will see dramatic climate changes and a different planet. The last time the Earth was 4 or 5 degrees warmer -- 3 million years ago -- there was no ice in the Arctic and sea levels were 80 feet higher. [Hansen, 2/26/2007; NRDC, 2007]

· Earlier this year, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- an international network of over 2,000 climate scientists -- concluded that evidence of global warming is “unequivocal” and human activity is “very likely” the cause. [NYT, 2/3/2007]

· Next month, the panel is expected to report that, without changes, within decades climate change could cause hundreds of millions of people to suffer water shortages and tens of millions to be flooded out of their homes annually. By 2080, hundreds of millions could starve. [AP, 3/11/2007]

The Edwards Plan:

· Cap and Reduce Global Warming Pollution: Edwards will set an economy-wide limit on the emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. He will build on the precedent of the Clean Air Act of 1990 -- which limited pollution causing acid rain through a sulfur dioxide cap-and-trade system -- to reduce pollution in a cost-effective and flexible manner.

o Use Science to Set the Caps: Edwards will cap greenhouse gases at levels that the latest climate science has determined to be necessary to avoid the worst impacts of global warming. He will cap greenhouse pollution starting in 2010, reduce it by 15 percent by 2020, and reduce it by 80 percent by 2050, consistent with the most aggressive plans under consideration in Washington.

o Make Polluters Pay: Edwards will auction off a portion of the pollution permits to raise $10 billion a year for a New Energy Economy Fund to jumpstart clean, renewable, and efficient energy technologies and create 1 million jobs. Other permits will be sold or given away.

· Lead the World toward a New Global Climate Change Treaty: Climate change is an international problem and the U.S. can never solve it alone. China is building the equivalent of one large coal-fired power plant a week and is expected to pass the U.S. as the world’s largest polluter of carbon dioxide in 2009. [NYT, 3/17/2007; WSJ, 3/3/2007]

To lead the world toward a new, effective climate change treaty, Edwards will:

o Make Our Own Commitments to Restore Our Moral Leadership: The U.S. has 4 percent of the world’s population but produces a quarter of its carbon dioxide emissions. It is one of only three developed nations that has refused to limit its greenhouse gas pollution. By adopting caps, Edwards will help the U.S. regain credibility in the world without sacrificing American competitiveness. [Irish Times, 2/14/2007; Greenwire, 10/31/2006]

o Involve Developing Economies: Any climate change treaty must include developing countries, which emit significant amounts of carbon and could otherwise serve as a haven for polluters. However, these nations are poorer than the U.S. and emit far less carbon per capita. To bring them to the table, Edwards will share America’s clean energy technology in exchange for binding greenhouse reduction commitments. If necessary, he will insist that strong labor and environmental standards in our trade deals include commitments on climate change. This new deal will require global participation, promote shared responsibility, and let American workers and businesses compete on a level playing field.

Creating the New Energy Economy and 1 Million Jobs

In the past, America squandered opportunities to lead the world in energy technology. Bell Labs invented the solar cell in New Jersey in 1954, but today 90 percent of solar panels are manufactured overseas. GM made the first modern electric car, but today Toyota and Honda lead the world in hybrid cars. Oil companies are slow to sell alternative fuels at their gas stations, while Brazil increased the share of new cars that run on ethanol from 4 percent to 70 percent in only three years. [Economist, 3/10/2007; HybridCars.com, 2007; GM, 2007; Edmunds.com, 2007; Khosla, 2006]

John Edwards believes that American entrepreneurs, farmers and manufacturers can lead the world in technology to generate clean, reliable energy and use it more efficiently. “Clean tech” is the hottest new area of venture capital funding. California-based Tesla Motors sells an electric roadster that gets 135 miles a gallon and can go from 0-to-60 in four seconds. In rural America, hundreds of small renewable energy companies are generating new jobs in ethanol and other biofuels, wind, and solar. The increased demand for the machinery of renewable energy -- such as wind turbines, solar panels and biomass engines -- is an opportunity to create “green collar” jobs and reenergize America’s manufacturing sector. [Newsweek, 6/21/2006; Iowa Renewable Fuels Association, 2006; Makower, Pernick, and Wilder, 2006; Apollo Alliance, 2006]

The Edwards Plan:

· Create the New Energy Economy Fund: To jumpstart our investment in the future, Edwards will create the $13 billion-a-year New Energy Economy Fund. The fund will be financed by greenhouse gas polluters through the sale of emission permits and by ending taxpayer giveaways for big oil companies, including special tax subsidies and sweetheart terms in offshore drilling leases. The resources will double the Department of Energy’s budget for efficiency and renewable energy, accelerate new energy technologies to market and help new businesses get started, encourage consumers to buy efficient products, and provide transition assistance to workers in carbon-intensive industries.

· Invest in Renewable Sources of Electricity: Renewable energy has been seen as socially desirable but costly. However, wind is already competitive with conventional sources in many markets. Solar could be competitive within three to eight years. [RAND, 2006; Economist, 3/10/2007]

o Make 25 Percent of Our Energy Renewable: Edwards will require power companies to generate 25 percent of their energy from renewable sources by 2025. A large expansion of renewable energy can reduce costs under current trends, according to a 2006 RAND study. In Texas, a similar requirement achieved its goals quickly with negligible costs through the accelerated development of wind power. [RAND, 2006]

o Dedicate Resources to Renewable Energy: Edwards will double the Department of Energy research budget, allowing it to reduce the cost and accelerate the marketability of current technologies to put clean solar, wind, and biomass into more communities. He will also encourage private investment by making permanent tax credits for the production of renewable energy; they currently expire at the end of 2008.

o Maximize the Potential of Cleaner, Safer Coal: Coal will be an important source of U.S. and global electricity for decades, but it is responsible for more than 30 percent of America’s carbon dioxide emissions. Edwards will invest $1 billion a year to research ways to burn coal cleanly and recycle its carbon underground permanently. He will also strengthen mine safety laws to ensure it is mined safely. Two large power companies, TXU and American Electric Power, recently announced plans to build experimental plants to capture carbon. [NYT, 3/15/2007 and 3/17/2007; McFarland, Herzog, and Jacoby, 2007]

· Transform the Auto Industry to Lead the World in Cars of the Future: Edwards believes that everyone should be able to drive the car, truck or SUV of their choice and still enjoy high fuel economy. American automakers have the ingenuity to lead the world in building the clean, safe, economical cars of the future.

o Reduce Oil Imports by 7.5 Million Barrels a Day by 2025: America’s need for imported oil forces it to rely on unstable and even hostile countries. Edwards called for a national goal to reduce oil imports by 7.5 million barrels a day by 2025 – nearly a third of the oil projected to be used in 2025 -- and get us on the path toward energy independence. [DOE, 2007]

o Help U.S. Automakers Modernize: Edwards will provide $1 billion a year to help U.S. automakers advance and apply the latest technology, including biofuels, hybrid and electric cars, hydrogen fuel cells, ultra-light materials, and drive train improvements. These resources will be financed from the New Energy Economy Fund and also help manufacturers meet higher fuel economy requirements. With a strong ethanol industry that includes cellulosic ethanol and hybrid and electric technology, American cars and trucks can be virtually petroleum-free within a generation.

o Produce 65 Billion Gallons of Ethanol a Year by 2025: However, although millions of ethanol-ready cars are on the roads, only about 600 of the 169,000 gas stations have pumps for E85, a blend of ethanol and gasoline. Edwards will require oil companies to install ethanol pumps at 25 percent of their gas stations and require all new cars sold after 2010 to be “flex fuel” cars running on either gasoline or biofuel. The New Economy Energy Fund will develop new methods of producing and using ethanol, including cellulosic ethanol, and offer loan guarantees to new refineries. [RAND, 2006; DOE, 2005; USDA, 2005]

o Raise Fuel Economy Standards: American cars and trucks are less efficient than they were two decades ago, despite the corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards. Standards in China, Japan, and the European Union are between 40 and 100 percent higher. Edwards will raise standards to 40 miles per gallon by 2016, a step that could single-handedly reduce oil demand by 4 million barrels per day. [Pew Center on Global Climate Change, 2004; Reicher, 2007]

· Open the Electricity Grids to Distributed and Renewable Generation: Traditionally, electricity has been produced at large, central power plants and transmitted through miles of power lines. Distributed generation of electricity promises reliable, clean, cost-effective production that is less vulnerable to natural disasters and attacks. Farms, factories, schools, and communities ought to be able to establish their own power sources and compete with traditional plants to sell wholesale capacity, as New England has pioneered. [DOE, 2000; New England ISO, 2006]

To open up the grid to innovation, Edwards will:

o Create Millions of Local Sources of Renewable Energy: Edwards will provide up to a $5,000 tax credit for homes and small businesses that invest in onsite generation of renewable energy like solar, wind, and geothermal power. He will also encourage local generation of renewable energy through “net metering,” which allows families to sell extra power back to utilities for credits against their electricity bills.

o Encourage Distributed Generation: Edwards will cut the red tape that hinders new energy producers from selling their power to the grid. He will require utilities to consider distributed generation as a means of lowering costs compared to new investments in centralized production and transmission.

o Research the Next Generation of Small Scale Renewable Energy: Edwards will invest in researching more profitable sources of renewable energy generation. For example, biomass engines producing both heat and power that can be three times more efficient than traditional distribution. [Hill, 2001]

Meet the Demand for More Electricity through Efficiency

Americans can get more power out of the electricity now available, typically at half the cost of producing more supply. Duke Energy CEO James Rogers calls efficiency the “fifth fuel,” and energy expert Amory Lovins says that “efficiency is cheaper than fuel.” Between 1977 and 1985, the economy grew by 27 percent while oil use fell by 17 percent. Once again, there are large energy savings possible today in energy generation, transmission, and use in homes, factories, and offices. For example, if every home installed five compact fluorescent lightbulbs, it would eliminate the need for 21 power plants. However, in our current system, utilities earn profits by selling power not meeting energy needs more efficiently. Ordinary Americans often lack the tools they need to use energy more efficiently. [ACEEE, 2006; Reicher, 2007; Globe and Mail, 2/24/2007; The New Yorker, 1/22/2007; McKinsey, 2006]

The Edwards Plan:

· Meet New Demand for Electricity through Efficiency for the Next Decade: Electricity demand is projected to increase by 1.5 percent a year between 2008 and 2018, on average. Edwards called for a national goal of meeting this demand by getting more power out of the electricity we use now, instead of producing more electricity. As a result, electricity use would be 15 lower by 2018 and renewable energy would have a better opportunity to gain market share. Increased efficiency includes managing peaks in demand and modernizing the electric grid and is largely achievable with current technology. [DOE, 2007; EPA Energy Star, 2006]

· Make Efficiency Profitable for Utilities: Most utilities profit from selling electricity, even when it would be cheaper to help their customers use less energy. Edwards will call on states to decouple utilities’ energy profits from sales, as California and nine other states have done, so they can focus on serving customer needs. States can also reward utilities for meeting green energy targets. [National Regulatory Research Institute, 2006]

· Expand Smart Meters and Smart Grids to Use Energy More Wisely: By simultaneously displaying energy use and price, smart meters encourage consumers to use less energy and to use energy when it can be generated less expensively. Utilities can also use information technology to monitor electricity demand, allowing them to plan their production more efficiently. [Nemtzow, 2007; Regulatory Assistance Project, 2006]

· Invest in Weatherized Homes and More Efficient Buildings and Appliances: Upgrading home furnaces, ducts, windows, and insulation can cut energy bills by 20 to 40 percent, year after year. However, the existing Department of Energy weatherization program reaches only 100,000 homes a year while more than 28 million remain eligible. Similarly, appliance efficiency standards have greatly reduced the energy use of refrigerators and air conditioners, but better use of the Energy Star program could save even more. Edwards will reverse the Bush budget cuts to the weatherization program and instead expand it to $500 million a year. He will call on states to create updated energy building codes. Finally, he will raise federal efficiency standards for appliances and maximize the potential of the Energy Star program by working to get more efficient appliances in stores and educating buyers and builders. [Reicher, 2007; ACEEE 2005]

· Reduce the U.S. Government’s Energy Use by 20 Percent and Make the White House Carbon Neutral. The U.S. government is the nation’s single largest energy consumer, with a $15 billion energy bill in 2005. However, its investments in energy efficiency have been cut in half since 2001. Edwards will overhaul federal buildings and vehicles to emphasize efficiency, reducing the use of energy by 20 percent, and expand the government’s use of renewable sources. After taking energy efficiency steps at the White House, he will purchase carbon offsets to make it carbon-neutral. [DOE, 2006; Alliance to Save Energy, 2007]

· Create GreenCorps: Idealistic young Americans can help fight climate change by conducting volunteer energy audits, weatherizing homes, installing home solar panels, and training neighborhood groups to do the same. Edwards will create a GreenCorps within AmeriCorps to create opportunities for them to serve.

Interesting Article from the National Journal - suggested by Catalina Ruiz Healey

http://nationaljournal.com/racerankings/wh08/democrats/

White House 2008 Rankings: The Democrats
© National Journal Group Inc.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007

There is no Democratic front-runner. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards all have a plausible claim on the nomination.

The usual metrics are all jumbled. Clinton leads the money race, leads in New Hampshire, and tops the national polls. Obama leads in South Carolina, in media love, and in enthusiasm. Edwards has the tightest message, the best organization in Iowa, and the lead in Iowa.

These rankings are ordered by likelihood of winning the Democratic Party primary and are based on a number of factors, including organization, money, buzz and polling. Click here for Republican rankings.

DEMOCRATIC RANKINGS

1.	No One		Last Ranking: --
Help wanted. Perhaps the "winner" of the first debate will nudge above the rest.

2.(tie)	Hillary Clinton	New York senator	Last Ranking: 1
Has a solid lead in national polling ever meant so little, so early? We're not sure the Clinton camp sufficiently steeled itself for the inevitable bruise of Obama's ability to match her in fundraising. The Clinton machine was built by hard work, but also by contingency and circumstance: the magic of doing the right things at the right time. To win, Hillary has to sell herself as a doer (in contrast to Obama's "hoper") and a trailblazer(will she alienate men?). She must also figure out how to survive the early debates without the aura of invincibility that might have kept her rivals from shooting buckshot in her direction and the aura of celebrity that, just six months ago, would have guaranteed that every crowd her campaign built was large and inspired. Thegood news, though, is that somebody else now has to share the burden of expectations. Almanac Profile

2.(tie)	Barack Obama	Illinois senator	Last Ranking: 2
The Obama campaign has been slow, steady and methodical. At this moment, it doesn't matter that Obama lacks a health care plan, a comprehensive economic policy, any subtle foreign policy vision or even a concrete proposal to move the Middle East peace process forward. But the idea of Obama is worth, it's safe to say, about 20 points in the national polls, and that is not sufficient. Just like Clinton, Obama has earned the privilege to fight for the nomination. That meanshe must subject himself to the indignities of a presidential campaign. Does he have the plod? Almanac Profile

2.5.	John Edwards	Former North Carolina senator	Last Ranking: 3
From the perspective of pure politics, the cancer announcement and its aftermath were handled adroitly. Edwards has had a good quarter, but he's still stuck between tiers, as our colleague Stu Rothenberg eloquently put it. We are impressed by Edwards' enduring lead in Iowa, where crowds have shown up to Clinton and Obama events, processed them and haven't changed their minds. Still, the Edwards folks have to fortify themselves for the inevitable Iowa falloff. Can they prevent the media from overreacting? Dick Gephardt couldn't survive once he lost his Iowa inevitability. Can Edwards? His final target is Clinton; his immediate enemy is Obama. As you watch him in the debates, keep that in mind.

3.	Bill Richardson	New Mexico governor	Last Ranking: 4
Richardson's right: He's in a tier of his own. During the debates, he'll have the chance to step away from his resumé and into a role more suited for the particular dynamics of this race. No candidate is depending on the debates more than Richardson. Almanac Profile

4.	Christopher Dodd	Connecticut senator	Last Ranking: 5
It's true -- this ain't the time for on-the-job training -- but so long as voters buy the argument that Hillary Clinton is experienced, and so long as Bill Richardson stays in the race, Dodd will have to find some other niche to occupy. The second quarter will tell us whether he is destined to be a vanity candidate and drop out. Don't mean to be harsh, but them's the facts. Almanac Profile

5.	Joseph Biden	Delaware senator	Last Ranking: 6
No candidate works harder to frame the Iraq debate, to respond to the news of the day and to justify, in clear terms, why his mastery of the issues is superior. Those journalists who like hard workers -- David Broder, Lee Bandy -- love Biden. There was a time when Broder could create a candidacy, but that's not enough anymore. Almanac Profile

6.	Dennis Kucinich	Ohio congressman	Last Ranking: 7
Remember in 2003 when Kucinich earned media coverage because opponents tried to remove him from debates and forums? This year, his footprint is so small that no one bothers. Almanac Profile

7.	Mike Gravel	Former Alaska senator	Last Ranking: 8
When we did a Google News search to see what he's been up to, our first result was about a guy named Mike, and way down in the story, it mentioned "gravel."

Clinton campaign unveils gay supporters

Clinton campaign unveils gay supportersPoliticians, activists lend names to early listBy JOSHUA LYNSEN Apr 17, 11:55 AM
http://www.washblade.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm?blog_id=12404
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign has released exclusively to the Washington Blade an early list of gay professionals and activists who support her White House run.
Clinton's camp, which furnished the list at the Blade's request, called it "just a sample" of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender leaders who support her.
Names on the list, in alphabetical order, include:

• Christopher Barley, New York City general internist
• Mary Breslauer, principal at Communications Solutions, co-host of HRC's XM radio show "The Agenda"
• Ilene Chaiken, creator and executive producer of television series "The L Word"
• Bruce Cohen, film and television producer
• Tom Duane, New York state senator
• Steve Elmendorf, president of Elmendorf Strategies
• Ethan Geto, partner at Geto & de Milly
• Emily Giske, Democratic National Committee member
• Deborah Glick, New York state Assembly member
• Chad Griffin, political consultant
• Rebecca Haag, executive director of AIDS Action
• Fred Hochberg, dean at Milano The New School for Management and Urban Policy
• Roberta Kaplan, attorney at Paul Weiss
• Billy Jean King, sports legend and social activist
• Neel Lattimore, director of strategic communications at Children's Defense Fund
• Rachel Lavine, New York state committee member
• Danny O'Donnell, New York state Assembly member
• Christine Quinn, speaker of the New York City Council
• Hilary Rosen, founding partner at Berman Rosen Strategies, former head of RIAA
• Peter Rosenstein, president of PDR Associates and Washington-based gay rights activist
• Mirian Saez, Democratic National Committee member
• Jeff Soref, former chair of the Democratic National Committee LGBT caucus
• Jill Stauffer, board of directors at HRC
• Sally Susman, executive vice president for global communications at Estee Lauder Companies
• Matthew Titone, New York state Assembly member
• David Wilson, member HRC board of directors

The list of supporters comes one week after former U.S. Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) released a list of prominent gay professionals and activists who have endorsed his White House run.
Look for a complete story about the emerging gay support for presidential contenders in Friday's print and online editions of the Blade.

Joshua Lynsen can be reached at jlynsen@washblade.com.

Stanford U panel discussion - Election 2008: Rhetoric vs Reality

The following post is from Catherine Tompkison-Graham, who is having blog issues at the moment.


The Hoover Institute and the Communications Department are hosting a panel discussion, Elections 2008: Rhetoric vs. Reality.

The panelists include: Matt Bai (NY Times), Dan Balz (Washington Post), David Brady (SU Prof and Deputy Dir of Hoover Institute) and Shanto Iyengar (SU Prof). The discussion will be held on Thursday, April 19, 7PM in Jordan Hall, Room 40.