Barack Obama is supposed to announce his VP candidate this evening or tomorrow morning by text message to supporters. There will be an event in Springfield, Illinois tomorrow afternoon with Obama and the Vice President candidate.
I am predicting that the choice will be Joe Biden. Biden is known to talk a lot and, except for a comment midweek that he’s not the guy, he has been pretty quiet the past couple weeks. Biden is coming off a trip to Georgia where he talked to leaders in the region about the conflict with Russia. Biden best quality in my opinion is that he isn’t afraid to throw elbows and go on the attack.
Bayh and Kaine’s names have been put out there before Obama made campaign stops in their respective states and the buzz wasn’t always positive. I think that was basically a test run and the campaign has decided against those two. Another reason that going against Kaine is that Obama just spent two days campaigning in Virginia, a key battleground state, so it wouldn’t make sense to announce your naming the Governor of Virginia VP at an event in another state.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Hillary Clinton gets the nod. This diary at Open Left makes the case that Obama will name Hillary Clinton that makes a lot of sense.
If, in June, Clinton told you she should be your VP and you were seriously considering it, what would you do? You would probably tell her that the only way it could happen is if you wholeheartedly endorse me, make it clear you have gotten over the joint ticket idea, have those under your influence (such as the “Vote Both” folks) drop all of their efforts on HRC’s behalf. You’d say, I can’t look weak by picking you, like I was forced by circumstance. It must look like a choice I made that I didn’t have to make but I did because I’m such a big person and I care about the country and I care about victory.
There are three candidates that I would most like to see be named vice president. I would love for Obama to name Kathleen Sebelius, who was campaigning in Iowa yesterday, is still a choice, but there hasn’t been much buzz about her lately. And Tom Harkin is pushing for Chris Dodd, which I think would be a great choice. Finally, I have been a little surprised that Bill Richardson hasn’t been mentioned as much. I think he would bring a lot to the table.
Then it could be a complete dark horse candidate like Tom Daschle, John Kerry, Mark Warner, or Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer (one of the battleground states Obama is visiting after the announcement is Montana).
Now it’s just time to sit back with my cell phone in hand and wait for the announcement.
Yesterday, Sen. Russ Feingold released a statement about the Democratic leadership caving in on the FISA to allow Telecom immunity.
The proposed FISA deal is not a compromise; it is a capitulation. The House and Senate should not be taking up this bill, which effectively guarantees immunity for telecom companies alleged to have participated in the President’s illegal program, and which fails to protect the privacy of law-abiding Americans at home. Allowing courts to review the question of immunity is meaningless when the same legislation essentially requires the court to grant immunity. And under this bill, the government can still sweep up and keep the international communications of innocent Americans in the U.S. with no connection to suspected terrorists, with very few safeguards to protect against abuse of this power. Instead of cutting bad deals on both FISA and funding for the war in Iraq, Democrats should be standing up to the flawed and dangerous policies of this administration.
And from Sen. Chris Dodd…
I cannot support the so-called ‘compromise’ legislation announced today. This bill would not hold the telecommunications companies that participated in the President’s warrantless wiretapping program accountable for their actions. Instead, it would simply offer retroactive immunity by another name.
“As I have said time and time again, the President should not be above the rule of law, nor should the telecommunications companies who supported his quest to spy on American citizens. I remain strongly opposed to this deeply flawed bill, and I urge my colleagues in Congress to join me in supporting American’s civil liberties by rejecting this measure.”
Richard Doak’s column in the Des Moines Register today is about the excitement of young people and their great possibility to influence change throughout the world.
The most fascinating possibility of 2008 is that the next Greatest Generation might be about ready to make its debut.
Hang around a college campus and it becomes easy to believe in the possibility. There’s something about today’s young people that inspires confidence.
Nationally, young adults are defying past patterns by turning out in record numbers to vote in the caucuses and primaries. They tend to vote differently from their elders, and there is an almost palpable sense among them that a new day is dawning.
These young adults are the leading edge of what has been labeled the Millennial Generation, people born between 1982 and 2003.
Some pop historians see history as being driven by generational change. If they’re right, America is approaching a turning point, and it will be the Millennials who determine the new direction.
John Mayer had the hit song Waiting for the World to Change where he talks about how the Millennial Generation is fully aware of the problems the world faces. How can they not be with 9/11, Global Climate Change, Hurricane Katrina, and a misguided war in Iraq weighing so heavily during the time their worldview was being formed?
However before this election, they haven’t been compelled to enter the political arena that they viewed as being stale, full of partisan bickering, and influenced by big money. Instead, they have chose to focus their energy on community action, through community involvement, church activities, environmental action, and building communities online.
…we look upon our broken system and choose not to scream at the rubble, but to take it upon ourselves to promote social change in our own way. So we volunteer. We join groups. We organize at the community level. We splinter off into thousands of glittering pockets of political change. We don’t mobilize nationalize because there is no call, no sense of need to so.
The 2008 election has called this generation to become involved politically. With no incumbent running for their party’s nomination, this election is truly a changing of the guard.
The candidates have called the Millennial Generation to become active in politics. Barack Obama has turned out huge numbers of young adults to support him, as has Hillary Clinton. Ron Paul has had tremendous success fundraising and organizing online. Chris Dodd called for people to get involved in national service. John Edwards started his campaign with the theme Tomorrow Begins Today and held his first event helping rebuild New Orleans.
John Mayer ended his song, saying that one day the Millennial Generation will have the power to change the world.
We keep on waiting waiting on the world to change One day our generation Is gonna rule the population So we keep on waiting Waiting on the world to change
Thursday was my first time participating in the caucuses. I expected it to be a little crazy and it was even crazier than I had imagined. People were told to show up at 6:30 and the doors closed at 7. I arrived at 6 and the room at the Iowa Veterans Home was already crowded.
I signed in and then helped people who needed to change their party to Democrat or register to vote. I would say I collected well over 50 registration forms from people who are now new members of the Democratic party and this was just one of 8 precincts in Marshall County. This is great news for Democrats come November 2008.
People were all signed in by 7, the doors were shut, and people made their way to their preference groups. There were 22 delegates to be had in my precinct. The caucus chair gave the introductory speeches, read a couple letters, and announced there were 372 people in attendance and each candidate needed 56 people to be viable.
Here is a look at the results…
First Count 140 Obama 103 Clinton 55 Edwards 33 Richardson 23 Biden 4 Kucinich 1 Dodd 6 Uncommitted
A few minutes were given for the non-viable groups to move around. Edwards needed 2 people to become viable and they quickly grabbed 2 from the Biden group. Then 10 people from the Biden group moved to Richardson. 3 of the 4 Kucinich people went to Obama.
Second Count 144 Obama 103 Clinton 57 Edwards 43 Richardson 25 Uncommitted
Then the 30 minute period to realign began. I was in the Obama corner and my job was to be the persuader. I talked a girl, who was home from college. She was concerned about Obama’s stance on invading Pakistan to find Osama bin Laden. I was unsuccessful and I think she went to Edwards. There were two former Biden supporters that I tried to bring to Obama by saying that I group up in the house they live in. That personal connection didn’t work and they went to Clinton. I did have some success. I talked the one leftover Kucinich voter to come to Obama over Edwards by telling her a lot of the same things I wrote in my endorsement of Obama.
While this was going on the Richardson group was able to get 3 more people, but were still 10 people away from becoming viable. They tried to pull some people from Clinton and Obama, but no one would budge. Finally, after 20 minutes or so the Richardson group gave up the hope of becoming viable and their group dispersed. The Richardson supporters split pretty evenly between Edwards and Obama, with just a couple going to Clinton.
Finally the 30 minutes were up and the counting for the final numbers began. The Obama group counted 3 times because we had some people that had left over the realignment time. Someone said 4 people, who are residents of the Veterans Home, had to go take their medication and then couldn’t return. The final count numbers didn’t match to the total number people at the beginning, so other groups had this problem also.
Final Count 159 Obama 107 Clinton 77 Edwards 5 Uncommitted
I have seen all the candidates numerous times over the past year and have gone back and forth between about 5 candidates. There truly are very talented candidates on the Democratic side and that is making it hard for many caucus-goers to decide on a candidate.
All along I tried to convey on my blog, my thinking and which way I was leaning (check out Still Undecided Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3). To help me decided, I made a list of what I want in a presidential candidate and compared each candidate to it.
John Edwards is saying everything that I would want a candidate to say. Most of the year, I had been saying that I was strongly leaning towards Edwards. I highly respect that Edwards is saying what needs to be said. However, there is something was holding me back from supporting him. I look at his rhetoric now and how they differ on he voted while he was in the Senate. He is speaking about helping the poor, but voted for the Bankruptcy bill, he is against the Iraq War, but voted for it. He is against NCLB, but he voted for it.
Another candidate that isn’t afraid to, unapologetically, say what they believe in is Joe Biden. Coming into this race, I was not a Biden fan at all. However, after meeting him in person, my opinion of him quickly changed. It is clear that Biden is extremely knowledgeable on foreign affairs. I have been outspoken against the war not just because we went to war under false claims, but also because it doesn’t seem that we have a mission there anymore. Joe Biden has a mission that can bring stability to Iraq.
Out of all the candidates on Iraq, I probably agree most with Bill Richardson. Richardson understands that our troops are stuck in the middle of a civil war and walking around with targets on their backs. He wants to get every single troop out of Iraq as soon as possible and he has the experience to accomplish that in a responsible manner. Also, Richardson has come out the strongest against NCLB, saying we need to get rid of it. However, one of my top issues is fair trade and Richardson has used the right talking points, but looking at past history he has been less supportive of fair trade.
I never really considered Hillary Clinton. Too many people have their minds made up that they don’t like her and a lot of that isn’t her fault. If Clinton is the nominee, we will be going through the divisive politics of the 90’s all over again. More importantly, Clinton been one of the biggest Democratic hawks in the Senate on the war. It is one thing to vote for the war and say you made a mistake, but it is another to vote for it and to be a spokesperson for failed policies.
That leaves two candidate that were strong on every important issue and had backed it up with past experience: Chris Dodd and Barack Obama.
Chris Dodd has shown remarkable leadership throughout the campaign, often times showing the other Senators in this race, when they must stand up. There was no better example than Dodd’s successful one-man stand, filibustering telecom immunity. His plan for free community college education is much needed and would work. His call for community service would restore a much needed sense of community that is badly needed in this country.
It is clear that Dodd is a tremendous Senator that understands the issues and that he holds strong progressive ideals and clear policy stances on the issues of education, energy, ending the war, health care, and restoring the rule of law. Unfortunately, Dodd’s campaign never took off and I am not sure why.
That leaves Barack Obama. When I looked at Barack Obama, at the beginning of the campaign, I saw a lot of potential, but I, also, saw him taking baby steps and being relunctant to take tough stands on important issues. As Obama talked about bringing people together to compromise, I had to ask question if Republicans like Dick Cheney and Karl Rove will compromise. That isn’t the game they play if you don’t have strongly held beliefs then it will just be more wimpy Democrats failing.
Then I read something about the difference between Edwards fighting for change and Obama talking about changing Washington. Edwards is talking about fighting for change on a micro level. He is talking about fighting at the negotiating table and not backing down and that is very important. However, Obama is talking about changing Washington on a macro level by bringing people together behind common values and once enough people are behind him then corporations and lobbyists will be forced to change. That reminded me of what John Perkins, author of Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, said at a lecture earlier this fall…
The corporations have great power, but we, as consumers, have great power over them. We can use this power to transform the empire into a viable model.
We must use consumer demand to change the corporatocracy’s goal from windfall profits to creating a stable, sensible, and peaceful future. No CEO wants Florida to go under water, terrorism, or polluted water. They all have kids and want them to have a quality life.
Perkins said this will be the easiest revolution ever because it is bloodless and the opponent, deep down in their hearts, is on our side, even if they don’t realize it. He said, “we need to turn the intent of our economy around.”
To lead this kind of change, a leader must have strong core principles and not back down. I saw Obama speak last week wanting to see if he had a back bone and hear what his core principles were and I did.
Because I know that when the American people believe in something, it happens.
If you believe, then we can tell the lobbyists that their days of setting the agenda in Washington are over.
If you believe, then we can stop making promises to America’s workers and start delivering – jobs that pay, health care that’s affordable, pensions you can count on, and a tax cut for working Americans instead of the companies who send their jobs overseas.
If you believe, we can offer a world-class education to every child, and pay our teachers more, and make college dreams a reality for every American.
If you believe, we can save this planet and end our dependence on foreign oil.
If you believe, we can end this war, close Guantanamo , restore our standing, renew our diplomacy, and once again respect the Constitution of the United States of America.
That’s the future within our reach. That’s what hope is – that thing inside us that insists, despite all evidence to the contrary, that something better is waiting for us around the corner. But only if we’re willing to work for it and fight for it. To shed our fears and our doubts and our cynicism. To glory in the task before us of remaking this country block by block, precinct by precinct, county by county, state by state.
I truly believe that Barack Obama has the strenth and conviction to lead the nation, not just to right the ship, but to lead it in the direction it needs to go. Obama has the ability to fundamentally change the way we live in our nation, not just the way Washington works. I hope you get on board.
Candidates are criscrossing the state and many are holding New Year’s Eve parties tonight. Iowa Politics has compiled a list of where the events are taking place…
The candidates are holding New Year’s Eve gatherings throughout the state. Here’s where they’re scheduled to be:
– Barack Obama is holding a New Year’s Eve rally at 8:30 p.m. at the Iowa State University Memorial Union in Ames. The doors open at 7:30 p.m.
– Hillary Clinton will be joined by husband and former President Bill Clinton at a New Beginnings Celebration at 9:45 p.m. at Capitol Square in Des Moines.
– John Edwards’ New Year’s Eve festivities begin at 6:30 p.m. at his Mason City campaign office.
– Chris Dodd is holding a New Year’s Eve party at Happy’s Place in Dubuque.
– Bill Richardson and wife Barbara will hold a holiday event at 8 p.m. at the Quality Inn and Suites Event Center in Des Moines.
– Mike Huckabee and his family are meeting with supporters at a New Year’s Eve gathering at 5:30 p.m. at the Wakonda Club in Des Moines.
– Mitt Romney and his family are attending the GuideOne ImaginEve celebration at 7:15 p.m. at the Hy-Vee Hall in Des Moines.
Nicholas Johnson wrote an Op Ed in the Iowa City Press Citizen on Saturday that provides an analysis of the candidates. Johnson discusses the qualities he is looking for and then looks at how each candidate stacks up.
So here are the qualities I’m looking for — followed by my opinion of who ranks highest.
• Experience administering large institutions (state or large city governments, corporations) — Gov. Bill Richardson (governor; Secretary of Energy), Rep. Dennis Kucinich (mayor of Cleveland).
• A “people person” with charisma or down-home manner, sense of humor (including self-deprecation), or what Molly Ivins called “Elvis” — Obama (charisma and “Elvis”), Richardson (down-home; humor).
• The understanding and credibility earned by working inside both Washington’s executive and legislative branches — Richardson (cabinet (Energy), Congress). (Legislative: Clinton, Edwards, Kucinich, Obama, Richardson and Senators Joe Biden and Chris Dodd).
• A willingness to put forward courageous, “best policy” proposals, rather than “starting off backing up” –Kucinich (only one to organize and vote against the war, and propose universal single-payer health care rather than for-profit insurance).
• Experience working inside international organizations (e.g., U.N., World Bank) — Richardson (UN ambassador).
• Understanding of the elements and process of citizen empowerment — Obama (community organizer).
• An understanding of foreign policy (as distinguished from administering it) — Biden, Dodd (plus, of course, Richardson).
• An ability to work with, but an independence from, special interest money and influence (the “Washington Establishment”) — My guess is that all have, can (and will have to) work with Washington’s real power centers.
However, Clinton’s strength in this department is her weakness. She and Bill could probably name all of their 4,000 presidential appointees in one evening without notes. But part of the reason for their millions from corporate lobbyists and PACs is the Washington Establishment’s expectation of another pro-corporate, business-as-usual Clinton administration.
• Experience negotiating with foreign leaders — Richardson (North Korea, Iraq, Sudan; U.N.; return of hostages); Biden and Dodd.
• Champion of the underdog — Edwards, Kucinich.
You may have a different list of qualities and evaluation of candidates. But I hope this kind of approach may be helpful to you in a year when we are blessed with a very tough choice from among excellent candidates.
I am not sure which candidate Johnson is supporting, but it seems Richardson is mentioned often in his analysis. As I have been thinking more about which candidate to support, I have been considering Richardson more and more. Though, I am not fully committed, Richardson’s stance on getting rid of NCLB, his vast experience, his energy policy, and, most importantly, his position on bringing all of the troops home from Iraq put him ahead of other candidates on those issues.
Despite another round of winter weather hitting Iowa, I will be attending 3 campaign events today. This will be my 2nd blogging triathlon. Back in July, I completed the first blogging triathlon by covering an Obama event, Dodd event, and a Biden event.
Today, I just got home from seeing Joe Biden in Marshalltown where I got some video, I am about to leave to see the Obama/Oprah event in Des Moines. Then later tonight I will be heading to Grinnell to see Ned Lamont campaigning on behalf of Chris Dodd.
As I posted earlier, I was unable to attend the Heartland Presidential Forum due to the winter weather that is hitting the area. So I am sitting comfortably at home and will be blogging from my couch.
It is Chris Dodd’s turn. He says it is more than just standing on stage and saying the right things, it is about what have you done in the past. He discusses his past volunteering in the Peace Corps (and throws in some Spanish while talking about his work in the Peace Corps), being elected to Congress, and passing the Family and Medical Leave Act.
The first question comes from a woman from Los Angeles who came to the US from Vietnam and was denied political asylum. Her family’s home was raided two months ago by immigration raided and she has been separated from her family. The next person is an immigrant from Kansas. She says she has followed the laws of this country, paid taxes, and contributed to the nation and finally became a citizen after nearly 20 years and $15,000. Dodd says he is the strong candidate for the Dream Act, but that is the easy part. Rhetoric is cheap. As a Senator, he has introduced separate legislation that keep families together. He says immigration reform has to be a priority of the next president.
The next question concerns the high cost of higher education and what Sen. Dodd will do to make sure younger Americans aren’t put into debt to provide basic needs such as education, housing, and health care. Dodd says he can give a good speech on this, but will tell what he has done on this issue. He fought the horrible Bankruptcy bill for 6 years when some who spoke at this forum voted for the bill. He has introduced a bill that says you can’t declare bankruptcy due to health care reasons and banks shouldn’t be getting rich off of student loans.
Dodd is asked about the growing income inequality. Dodd answers with a swipe at Edwards…
I have been fighting tooth and nail. I am no Johnny come lately on these issues.
He says there is a direct correlation in the decline in union households and the rise in income inequality.
Dodd didn’t give as a rousing speech as Edwards and Kucinich, but he really highlighted his experience and the fact that actions speaks louder than words.
