A Failure to Communicate

Perhaps this explains why Democratic leaders have put Cap & Trade legislation on the back burner. From Rasmussen:

Given a choice of three options, just 24% of voters can correctly identify the cap-and-trade proposal as something that deals with environmental issues. A slightly higher number (29%) believe the proposal has something to do with regulating Wall Street while 17% think the term applies to health care reform. A plurality (30%) have no idea.

According to this poll, Democrats are less likely to accurately describe Cap & Trade as proposal to address climate change than their Republican or independent cohorts. What does this say about Democratic leadership's messaging efforts if they're own supporters are clueless on one of their top priorities?

Moving Goalposts Arrive in Denver

I realize now that those shifting goalposts from the primary season may have been much more media-created than I previously understood.

Last night I was impressed by Hillary's speech after having been firmly ensconced in the ABC (Anybody But Clinton) Camp throughout the primaries. This morning, I found myself amazed, enraged and ashamed by how the media is pushing the PUMA-driven "Clintonistas are bitter" storyline so aggressively.

I'm exhausted by the media's relentless handwringing (and schizophrenic) chorus.

First, they told us, "Michelle must define herself and allow voters to become comfortable with her family"
initial reviews: CHECK
"Good job. But where was the red meat?" Is there any rational human (other than those who receive the RNC's daily talking points email) who believes the image of an angry, on-the-attack Mrs. Obama would have endeared her to undecided voters?

Next they turned their obsession to Hillary's Herculean task. "How can Hillary pivot and transfer the support of her 18-million strong army to become part of Barack's Battalion? Will she look genuine? Or will she come off as readying her 2012 bid?"
initial reviews: missions accomplished!
Well, she was good - maybe her best speech ever, in fact. But, wait, come to think of it, you know she forgot to mention whether or not she now feels Obama is ready to receive that 3 AM call. And, look, here's an angry white woman who still seems dissatisfied that the system robbed Hillary. Cleary, she left some work undone.

Where are all the critiques of the Bush/Cheney administration? Why haven't they hung that 24% approval rating around McCain's neck? They're missing their opportunity! Is this Kerry '04 redux? When will the Democrats learn politics is a contact sport? All the time they're saying this, speaker after speaker is on the podium denouncing Bush, McCain and failed Republican policies.

The media opts to air more of themselves bloviating about the real issue before voters: Bill Clinton feels dissed by the upstart and aloof Barack Obama.

So, today we're treated to "What will Bill say? And, what will he look like while he's saying it? Will he look like he's passing a kidney stone? Will he wag his finger? Even more importantly, what will he be thinking when he says it?

Thankfully, we have Dr. Maureen Dowd to help us with that analysis.

Oh, and by the way, Obama speaking in front of 75,000 people - that just reinforces this celebrity thing dontcha think? Politicians should be serious and not really popular. American leaders should be plodding and boring - not inspirational. Maybe if he had spent time in a POW camp, he would understand how unwise it is to make the most important speech of his lifetime in such a public venue.

The inevitable result is an unwinnable situation where Democrats are confronted by an endgame with bogus goalposts, impossible Catch-22s created by morning after psychologists and manufactured drama driven by a minority who are desperate for their fifteen seconds of fame (yes, in the youtube era, Warhol's prediction has been truncated into nothing more than a sound bite).

I've taken to watching the convention on CSPAN, where there is no bloviating media telling me what to think. I'm hoping Barack and Plouffe have made a similar decision.

UPDATE 3:26, 8/26/08: The Boston Globe's editors share my affinity for CSPAN's convention coverage.

Political Junkies Anonymous?

The wind-down to the most competitive nominating contest in American history has me transfixed - and a little worried. Does anyone know of a post-primary 12-step program for political junkies? How will I replace my addiction to polls, 24-hour talking heads and my new gay-man crush on Rachel Maddow?

Personally, today the emotion is one of "delayed relief." While I'm delighted the moment has finally arrived, it's a tad bit anticlimactic. Anyone with the ability to do simple mathematics knew the outcome of this contest in late February.

I've been angry at the Clintons at many moments during this campaign, perhaps never moreso than watching Harold Ickes' hypocritical and nasty performance at the RBC meeting on Saturday. However, it has completely evaporated over the past 24 hours, replaced by a surprisingly bittersweet sympathy. I am relieved the Democrats have finally removed the "burden" of Bill and Hillary by rejecting and renouncing her coronation march. My party has proven we are America's small "D" democrats, the true defenders of the Jeffersonian ideal. No single person - or family - is more important than the party, or the country.

As I write this, MSNBC is reporting Hillary is letting it be known she would accept an invite to be the Veep. I hope Barack resists this temptation. I believe he is smart enough to understand the danger of bringing Bill's baggage to the Democratic ticket. My sincere desire is that this last dance between the two candidates to be graceful. Hillary can have a great future in the Democratic party. The Senate will be in desperate need of a powerful Democratic voice.

Now, my nerves are redirected to the general election and a climatic November moment ... anxiously anticipating a Democratic victory. Will Democrats find a way to snatch defeat despite overwhelming macrotrends pointing toward a Democratic sweep?

Maybe I don't need that 12-step program yet, after all.

Listen Up, Folks!

Hillary was on Nightline last night discussing Super Delegate Joe Andrew's decision to switch his support from her to Obama. Predictably, she dismissed the impact of his choiced and disagreed with his assessment that the prolonged campaign is now damaging Democrats' chances in November. "Anyone who believes that this is bad for the party, I just don't think is paying attention," she said.

Today, Gallup released a poll showing over 60% of Democrats believe this nomination fight is "doing more harm than good." While three out of four Obama supporters feel this way, a full 43% of Clinton supporters agree.

Let's review.

After telling us activists don't matter, caucus states don't matter, African Americans don't matter, college educated voters don't matter and young voters don't matter, Mrs. Clinton is now lecturing us that a majority of the Democratic Party doesn't matter.

Who's the elitist candidate?

A Blue Wave Building

Much has been made about the surge in democratic registration across the country. As the Pennsylvania primary approached, the MSM reported about the long-time Republican bastions of Montgomery and Bucks Counties outside Philadelphia had flipped - becoming majority Democratic jurisdictions. This Democratic surge has been widely viewed by politicos as one of the positive side-effects of the interminable Democratic nomination fight, as party-building has preceded voting in each successive primary contest.

We've now got news that the trend continues, post-primary, in a critical state. The California Majority Report has reviewed the voter registration trends in California since the Golden State voted on SuperTuesday and Democrats continue to widen the gap between the two parties across the state:

This boost in Democratic registration isn't simply a temporary lift propelled by interest in the February presidential primary. In every Assembly district in the state since the cutoff for registration for the February primary, Democratic registration has risen while Republican registration has declined. Overall, Democratic registration has inched up by .6 percent statewide. Meanwhile GOP numbers continue their free-fall, declining by .4 percent, in the period between January 22nd and April 4th.

McCain's March Deposits: $15M

While the MSM frets over the potential divisiveness of the Democratic Party's never-ending nomination fight, the Republican Party continues to struggle to close the "enthusiasm gap" with the Democrats.

The latest omen: The WSJ reports presumptive GOP nominee John McCain raised a paltry $15 million in March. This is far smaller than the enormous mountains of cash raised by the Democratic contenders (Obama's $40M+; Hillary's $20M). McCain is succeeding at gathering the party faithful (Bush '04 donors are now giving) to his cause. But how can that be a good thing when the Democrats are attracting money (and votes!) from indies, young people, and new voters at unprecedented rates?

Democrats Heading Toward a Denver Disaster?

I am unsure as to whether I believe the rapidly forming conventional wisdom that a brokered convention is a disaster for Democrats in November.

I keep hearing the "the divided party typically loses in November" mantra repeated all morning. I'm not sure this is true in a year where the pundits have been wrong AGAIN and AGAIN.

Granted, the quick end to the chaotic Republican race seems to provide the GOP a step up in the general election campaign, but this assumes McCain can achieve two goals. Can he unify a divided party and energize the conservative grassroots base to do the hard campaign work necessary to win in November? Can he make this move without alienating the moderate independents who are the base of his support?

Beyond McCain's challenges, the muddled Democratic nomination battle may also have unacknowledged pluses for eventual Democratic nominee.

• No Clear Target: First off, the longer we go without a nominee, the less damage the GOP smear machine can do. They can only work to brand "tax and spend liberals" and "Surrender to terror" broadbased memes - which they're going to do anyway. On the other hand, both Obama and Clinton can now do a semi-pivot toward the general election - attacking the McCain/Bush foreign and domestic policy failures.

This is already underway on the campaign trail. It behooves progressives to successfully link McCain to Bush and the neoconservative ideology. By doing this, it will force McCain to repudiate and distance himself from Bush. This makes McCain's challenge to shore up conservative support much more difficult.

• Free Media: A protracted Democratic debate means both Clinton and Obama receive top billing night after night in the national media narrative, relegating Bush and McCain to the sidelines. I envision McCain saying to his old media pals, "hey, what about me? Don't forget I'm relevant over here!"
• Campaign Focused on Democratic Issues: The vibrant debate between Clinton & Obama will mean this election is defined along Democratic themes NOT Republican. Healthcare, the economy and education will remain frontburner issues while the terror card fades into the background (unless al Qaeda rears its hideous head on American soil again).
• A Third Party Candidate Emerges: The dissafected conservatives may see an opening to run a third party candidate - they may view McCain as a sacrificial lamb - and decide to send a powerful reminder to the Republican establishment that they cannot win without grassroots conservative support. Don't be surprised if this happens. I think the longer the Dems don't have a nominee (which means we've got the spotlight) the greater the likelihood a conservative grassroots third party candidate jumping in becomes.
• The Power of the Media: The media is absolutely LOVING this. There is a bottom-line profit motive for our 24-7 cable news that propels this back-and-forth. If you haven't noticed, each time one of the Democratic candidates seems to propel slightly ahead, the moment the underdog over-performs, the MSM declares a momentum shift. A prolonged fight feeds the insatiable machine. They have a dog in this fight - and it's ALWAYS the underdog.

The Word of the Day: "Chaos"

The Morning After Michigan provides glee for Democrats as we watch the GOP nomination battle sink further into disarray. The national consensus is the race is in chaos.

But Democrats need to be cautious. It would be a strategic blunder to develop a sense of overconfidence this early in the campaign. The year is barely more than two weeks old and we've seen conventional wisdom twisted and turned on its head multiple times already.

One thing we can all be certain of at this point: There is certainly a long way to go. We haven't seen the last time the punditocracy is left cleaning the egg off their collective faces.

One might try to make the case that the Democratic race is as murky and unpredictable as the Republican contest. While the ultimate winner remains a question mark, I don't think "chaos" is an apt description on the Democratic side. There is a lot of a agreement on policy among the candidates. The vitriol we're experiencing right now regarding race and campaign tactics is actually calm (for a Democratic contest) and is a normal and expected part of a tight nominating contest.

The Republicans, on the other hand, are in disagreement over core issues and approaches - and each candidate is playing to win over their own faction and segment within their disintegrating coalition. This is why you see their candidates cherry-picking the contests where they will compete.

They are also caught in an unenviable vice: How to run a primary campaign advocating change (and against the sitting President) without alienating that president's supporters in the easily agitated GOP electorate? It will become even more difficult in the general election when the Democratic Party unites and turns all of its attention to the Republican nominee, who will either have to refute Dubya's policies (and risk the base staying home) or stick by their guy (and watch indies flock to the Democrats in droves).

Questions for both parties remain as Tsunami Tuesday approaches.

Can the Dems still be torn asunder? Yes (especially if race remains a topic in the upcoming contests)

Can the Republicans pull it together? Probably (but the continued pandering to factions who are fundamentally opposed to one another will make it less and less likely)

"A Fool Born Every Minute"

Must be what Bill is banking on when he says stuff like this on the campaign trail.

Hey, Stupid, It's Iraq (and the Economy)!

Arianna has a post up over at HuffPo about the diminished focus on Iraq in the presidential campaign. In recent weeks, the MSM has pushed the "surge is working" storyline and Arianna correctly warns the Democratic contenders about the perils of ignoring Iraq on the campaign trail. She argues ceding the foreign policy and global war on terror issues to Republicans is risky and a repeat of Kerry's 2004 strategic mistakes.

I agree. The Democrats need to buck the newly delivered conventional wisdom being spouted by the media who "have hit on a new way of diminishing the importance of the war: pretend like no one cares about it anymore, like it's old news." It is yet another "inside the beltway" consultant driven talking point that reveals the disconnect between the chattering classes and the American electorate.

Our Democratic nominee will have the best chance of winning in November if they expand beyond our "kitchen table" economic issues (where Dems are traditionally strong) into the realm of foreign policy and national defense.

"Fight Night" in Vegas: Who's Angry Now?

The MSM weeks ago labeled John Edwards as "too angry" to win the Democratic nomination. But the recent turmoil between the Clinton and Obama camps - with charges of racism entering the campaign - puts a new light on Edwards' rhetoric. At least his "anger" is about real issues that affect the daily lives of average Americans.

The MSM's pitbull-like grip on this storyline over the past 72 hours once again reveals the media's fascination with the horse race aspects of the campaign rather than focusing on the important policy issues facing the nation. I may be wrong, but I believe voter interest in the "inside baseball" charges about dirty campaign tricks is negligible.

The charges being thrown between the Obama and Clinton entourages diminishes both frontrunners and the Democratic Party in general. I believe Clinton has been severely wounded - if not fatally for the general election - by angering African American voters. How does she win without their overwhelming support in November? Obama does not escape unscathed. His "politics of hope" is tarnished each time one of these old-time "politics as usual" schoolyard fights breaks out.

With the news of a tighter-than-expected race forming in Nevada prior to this Saturday's caucuses one has to wonder, are Democratic voters taking another look at John Edwards?

NH Dems Tell MSM: "Slow Down, Important Election Underway"

The punditocracy is stunned for the second time in a week. The Democratic nomination battle has everyone scratching their heads, hungover from a weekend-long binge of polls and political rallies in the snow. The frenetic pace (and the 24-7 news cycle's voracious appetite) have left the candidates, the media and the general population (at least those of us who pay attention to politics and not Britney) exhausted and disoriented.

Thank you, New Hampshire, from a long-time member of the ABC (Anybody But Clinton) Camp. In this compressed election cycle, I think the NH Democrats did the rest of us a huge favor yesterday.

Why? Because the voters have shown they are now in control of the campaign's narrative.

The Democratic nomination's 2008 narrative had been viewed throughout the 2007 calendar year as Hillary Rodham Clinton's "coronation march." The endless endorsements and insurmountable leads in national opinion polls combined with a professionally run textbook campaign led the MSM to believe in Sen. Clinton's aura of inevitability.

The only hint that something may have been amiss in the House of the Democratic Establishment was Sen. Barack Obama's quirky ability to raise oodles of money. Everyone anticipated Sen. Clinton would be able to raise unprecedented funds for her presidential campaign. Few predicted anyone - nevermind a freshman Senator from Chicago, Hillary's hometown - would be able to keep pace and build a fundraising list larger than the well-connected Clinton machine.

While Obama's fundraising prowess was impressive, the MSM also found it easy to dismiss as another insurgency a la Howard Dean. Democratic nomination fights often have insurgent campaigns that catch the electorate's imagination early but flame out when the real voting takes place.

When Iowa's caucus voters showed up in record numbers last Thursday night and delivered a resounding repudiation of the Clinton machine, the media and the general population (not to mention TeamHillary) woke up to the realization that this Democratic nomination would be no cakewalk for the former first lady. As John Houseman would say in the old Smith Barney ads, "She's going to have to earn it."

The media - provided a new and exciting storyline for the Democratic race - caught a severe case of "Obamamania" over the weekend. Every poll seemed to indicate an ObamaWave was sweeping across from the plains to swamp the Clinton Granite State firewall. The talking heads told us there was little Clinton could do to reverse the momentum. We saw Hillary tear up (and the media tear her down). We saw Bill Clinton's angry and bitter side (one we often heard rumors about but rarely saw during his presidency).

On election day, media predictions during the afternoon heralded the end of Two Dynasties - the Bushes and Clintons. It was a grandly historic day - at least the media kept telling us. More than 4 out of ten Republican NH primary voters were either dissatisfied or angry with Bush and Obama was going to win going away, if the latest polls were to be believed.

It turns out the polls predicting a 10-12 point Obama victory were dead wrong. Many theories are being bandied about. Was it the tears? Did women rally to Hillary's side when the media (and her opponents) displayed a blatantly sexist double-standard? Was it the fact Hillary decided to change tactics and actually answer audience questions over the weekend? (without which the tears would never have flowed) Or was it the playing out of the "Bradley effect?" Did a latent Yankee racism creep into the privacy of the polling booths? Or was it the triumph of the experience over rhetoric argument?

I argue it was a combination of all of the above. But, I also believe another factor was in play: This race to a nominee was hurtling far too fast for the staid Granite Staters. In their stoic wisdom they understood that the media frenzy and the willingness of the punditocracy to transfer the crown of inevitability from one head to another was occuring far too fast.

Iowa Democrats validated Obama's viability as a national candidate. New Hampshire Democrats, in backing Clinton, were not rejecting Obama's message as much as they were saying: Slow down. We're moving much too fast. We need to make sure the Democratic standard-bearer is our strongest candidate in November. As a result, more Democrats get to weigh in and determine our nominee.

Thank you, New Hampshire and Iowa.

Obama: America's Great Hope?

The more I thought about it yesterday, I began to think Obama winning the presidency might be America's one chance at redemption for the foreign policy disasters of the past seven years. His ascension sends a powerful message to the world about what America truly aspires to be - a beacon of hope in a world of conflict and human rights abuses. An Obama Administration would also be another step in the long and arduous process of cleansing our nation's soul from the centuries-old stain of slavery, Jim Crow and institutionalized racism.

Did you see this at PoliPundit? Poses an interesting theory about the Iowa white Democrats voting for Obama were about publicly showing their "anti-bigotry and tolerance quotient" to their neighbors. Interesting. Will the reticent Yankees of NH revert to the "polling booth racism" inherent in the Bradley effect? Or did Howard Ford Jr's run in TN Sen-06 (where he actually received a larger % of the vote than he had been polling) usher in a new electoral reality?

We'll see on Tuesday night.

Hawkeye Lessons, Election 2008

Iowa Democrats issued a clarion call for change last night by rebuking the Clinton machine and endorsing Barack Obama's post-partisan message of reconciliation and change. While Democratic turnout swamped the Republicans, the GOP voters delivered a verdict demanding change and rejected the failed Bush policies by endorsing the DC outsider's candidacy. While I think the MSM's rush to describe this election cycle as similar to 2008 is premature and hyperbolic, it's clear something is happening.

The rise of populism (on both sides), a generational shift, an unpopular war and a politicized and engaged electorate is a recipe for a tectonic political change. Barack Obama finds himself perfectly positioned for the campaign ahead.

The entrance poll data reveals:

1) The Energized Youth: Obama's campaign took a huge risk by staking his political fortunes on the notoriously disengaged voters under the age of thirty. Despite predictions the youth of 2008 would behave as the youth of the past, Obama built an Iowa (and national) strategy on a generational foundation. Defying the experts, they showed up in droves.

2) The Missing Gender Gap: TeamHillary believed she could achieve victory by attracting the majority of female voters. In a party where women outnumber men, female voters were viewed as Hillary's firewall. Surprisingly, Obama bested Hillary by a 35-30% margin.

3) Indies Heart the Democrats: Non-affiliated voters chose to caucus with the Democrats (20% were indies) and they were solidly in Obama's camp. Clinton attracted only 17% of these voters, finishing far behind Edwards and Obama. This reaffirms the general consensus Sen. Clinton is the polarizing figure in the Democratic race and undermines her argument as the most electable general election candidate.

4) Ronnie, They Shrunk Your Party: The 'theocratization' of the Republican Party continued, full-steam ahead. Fully 60% of the Iowa GOP caucus attendees were self-identified evangelicals. The GOP's decades-long Southern Strategy may be coming to fruition: a retreat to the land of Dixie, unelectable outside the South.

The Final Iowa Ads - Edwards' Unique Approach

All three leading Democratic candidates bought substantial airtime on Iowa television last night, the Iowa Caucus Eve. While both Obama and Clinton appear in a one-on-one sitdown with the Iowa electorate to deliver their closing arguments, John Edwards doesn't even appear in his closing ad. Instead, he has Iowan Doug Bishop explain Edwards' promise to Bishop's young son, "I'm going to keep fighting for your daddy's job" as the reason he supports Edwards.

In my opinion, the choice to have an average American deliver a testimonial on his behalf, was the more powerful of the three Democratic ads.





Obama lightheartedly lets Iowans know "you'll be glad to know this will be one of the last times you'll here me say, "I'm Barack Obama and I approved this message""... and then goes on to explain why he is running for president. "I'm running to finally solve the problems we talk about year after year after year..."





Hillary's ad, called Crossroads delivers a litany of issues facing the nation's next president. But the MSM seems to be more fascinated by the "extreme makeover" and good lighting of the softer, gentler Hillary than the substance of the message.

NYT: Iowa May Provide Dems Few Answers

Adam Nagourney poses the question: What if Iowa Settles Nothing for Democrats? by describing the Jan 3rd caucuses with, "Rarely has a political event been so intensely anticipated as a decisive moment, at least on the Democratic side."

Really? I was always under the impression Iowa was the first step in a long (but very shortened this cycle) series of elections designed to determine the Democratic nominee. Despite Michelle Obama's misguided statement of Iowa being "make or break" and the political chattering classes saying a Hillary win would be tantamount to sealing the deal, I think a process that moves on to the other early states (and, hopefully to at least Tsunami Tuesday) with two or three viable candidates will make the eventual nominee stronger as a general election candidate.

Despite Mr. Nagourney's concerns, if there are three Senators still standing on Friday morning, it will be a good day for Democrats. It will be a good day for America.

Political Junkies' Nirvana

The Iowa newspaper of record, The Des Moines Register has released a new poll in the closing days before the caucuses illustrating once again why this may be the best of times for self-described political junkies like myself.

The contest is TOO CLOSE TO CALL. Make that BOTH contests.

I'm not sure if it could get any better than this - except to say the quick succession of primary contests means the nomination battle's frantic race to the (likely) Tsunami Tuesday finish line will mean the rollercoaster ride will be far too short.

The top Democratic headline from the DMR: "New Iowa Poll: Obama Widens Lead Over Clinton" announces Obama has opened the largest lead (32%-25% over Clinton) any candidate has enjoyed over the course of the year-long campaign in the Hawkeye State. But David Yepsen, the journalistic dean of Iowa politics writes (in the same Register) about the risk of making predictions from this poll.

• Some support is soft. Of those who have decided on a candidate, 34 percent of the Democrats say they could still be persuaded to change their minds. Among Republicans, it's 46 percent.

  A lot of caucus-goers are first-timers. A whopping 60 percent of the Democrats say this would be their first time at a caucus. Some 40 percent of the Republicans say that.

  A lot of Democratic caucus-goers aren't all that Democratic. Some 40 percent of the Democratic caucus-goers say they are independents, and another 5 percent say they are Republicans. (Technically, they'll all have to re-register as Democrats to participate, but that can be done at the caucus site.) Put another way, 54 percent of the Democratic caucus-goers say they're Democrats. In 2004, it was 80 percent.

What this all means is Obama's "widening lead" is built on a very soft (and unpredictable) foundation. Many other polls taken during the same period weight previous caucus-goers more heavily. These polls continue to show a tight three-way race. Any of the leading campaigns can build a strong case for finishing first Thursday night.

Digging deeper into the numbers, it's interesting to see the issues divide between the GOP and Dem voters going into the caucuses. Immigration looms large on the Republican side while only 3% mention healthcare as an issue. Only 3% of Democrats are concerned about immigration; they're motivated by the war in Iraq and healthcare.

As a Democrat,the best news from the DMR poll may be this nugget (again from Yepsen):

* Democrats are on fire. And what if 40 percent of the Democratic caucus-goers are independents and 5 percent are Republicans? That tells us the GOP is in real trouble, that a lot of Americans want change and that they are turning to the Democrats to find it.

"Hold on, boys and girls, strap yourselves in and please keep your arms and legs inside the car. This rollercoaster is going to be unlike any other you've ever been on."

As I See It: The Democratic Nomination

Democrats are blessed this New Year.

We have a field of presidential candidates unmatched in American history. The Iowa caucuses loom less than 72 hours away and - for the most part - we are debating our candidates' strengths. Who is the most electable? Who has the most valuable experience? Who can unite a nation and enact change?

It may have at times seemed dirty and nasty (and may get moreso in the weeks preceding Tsunami Tuesday) but all one has to do is look at what's happening on the other side to realize the Democratic campaign is about a positive vision for America's future. The Republicans? Not so much.

How does one choose from this qualified and diverse candidate roster? To me, it comes down to this central question:

Do I want a "uniter" who will moderate to the middle (Obama) or do I want a "fighter" who will have the determination to implement truly progressive liberal reforms (Edwards) to be the Democratic Party's nominee?

"Turning the page" on the past two decades' partisan warfare is well and good, as long as the nation is led into it's next progressive chapter, united in purpose to restore the American Dream.

I have less faith in Obama's ability to move to the nation in the progressive direction and that is why I believe Edwards would be our strongest standard-bearer.

The Delegate Dash Is On

before the first votes are cast in America's Heartland, Hillary is ahead in SuperDelegates - proving the Democratic establishment has gathered in the Clinton Corner.

According to ABC's survey the totals are:

DELEGATES
Clinton 158
Obama 89
Edwards 26
Richardson 20
Dodd 15
Biden 8
Kucinich 1
Gravel 0

Since these delegates are free to change their minds, it will be interesting to see if the voting in Iowa and New Hampshire alters these totals.

TeamHillary on the Hawkeye Tightwire

A powerful force is at work when the liberal and conservative punditocracy opinion talking heads extol similar viewpoints simultaneously. An emerging consensus of the rarely aligned voices from the Left (EJ Dionne) and the Right (D. Brooks) provides additional narrative to the "TeamHillary is in Free-fall" and "The Clinton Coronation March Has Ended" storylines.

Brooks writes this morning about the underlying strength of the Obama candidacy - an "astonishingly" consistent, inner-driven man with a unique approach to modern American politics. He observes:

"Many of the best presidents in U.S. history had their character forged before they entered politics and carried to it a degree of self-possession and tranquillity that was impervious to the Sturm und Drang of White House life.

Obama is an inner-directed man in a profession filled with insecure outer-directed ones. He was forged by the process of discovering his own identity from the scattered facts of his childhood, a process that is described in finely observed detail in “Dreams From My Father.” Once he completed that process, he has been astonishingly constant."

...SNIP...

"...Obama does not ratchet up hostilities; he restrains them. He does not lash out at perceived enemies, but is aloof from them. In the course of this struggle to discover who he is, Obama clearly learned from the strain of pessimistic optimism that stretches back from Martin Luther King Jr. to Abraham Lincoln. This is a worldview that detests anger as a motivating force, that distrusts easy dichotomies between the parties of good and evil, believing instead that the crucial dichotomy runs between the good and bad within each individual."

Brooks argues Obama's post-partisan approach, his inner confidence and his powers of observation make him a powerful alternative to Clinton for Democratic primary voters.

In the WaPo, EJ Dionne concludes Hillary's downturn is due to multiple miscalculations: she doesn't grasp the "vision thing," is guilty of overlooking Iowa toward a general election campaign and her failure to understand Obama's appeal.

"Yet Clinton's difficulties owe to deeper flaws in her strategy. These include an early ambivalence about competing in Iowa; the failure to link her arguments about experience to more inspirational themes; and an underestimation of Obama, bred by his sluggish performance during the summer. She thus emphasized positions -- in favor of a tough Iran policy, for example -- potentially more helpful in a general election campaign than with a Democratic electorate."

According to Dionne, TeamHillary is frustrated by perceived unfair media coverage. They are unhappy Clinton is primarily blamed for the campaign's negative tone and Obama's policy proposals receive minimal media attention while his idealistic rhetoric receives glowing reviews.

TeamHillary's challenging balancing act: continue raising questions about Obama as a general election candidate without being viewed as attacking. Thus far, they've been somewhat unsuccessful and the task becomes more difficult now, the week before Christmas.

Who will benefit from the changed Democratic dynamic? I won't be surprised by a John Edwards Iowa victory.