On January 3, 2008, roughly 240,000 Iowans attended Democratic precinct caucuses, and at least 90,000 of them ended up in Barack Obama's corner.
However we felt about Obama during the primaries or the general election campaign, whatever we think about his substantive and symbolic actions since the election, we can all agree that he would not be sitting in the Oval Office if Iowa caucus-goers had put him in third place, or even a distant second.
I started writing this diary several times last year. I kept abandoning it because emotions were so raw on Democratic blogs that I felt the piece would only ignite a flamewar. Since more than a year has passed, I decided to try one more time.
I do not mean to start an argument or pretend that I have all the answers. I just enjoy thinking about counterfactual history (such as this or this).
After the jump I will try to figure out whether Hillary Clinton or John Edwards could have beaten Obama in Iowa.
A year ago tonight, nearly 240,000 Iowans spent a couple of hours in overcrowded rooms during the Democratic precinct caucuses.
Thousands of others came to freezing cold Iowa to knock on doors or make phone calls for their presidential candidate in late December and early January.
Share any memories you have about caucusing or volunteering in this thread.
After the jump I re-posted my account of what happened at my own caucus. I was a precinct captain for Edwards.
I do most of my writing at the Iowa progressive community blog Bleeding Heartland.
Last year at this time I was scrambling to make as many phone calls and knock on as many doors as I could before the Iowa caucuses on January 3.
This week I had a little more time to reflect on the year that just ended.
After the jump I've linked to Bleeding Heartland highlights in 2008. Most of the links relate to Iowa politics, but some also covered issues or strategy of national importance.
I only linked to a few posts about the presidential race. I'll do a review of Bleeding Heartland's 2008 presidential election coverage later this month.
I am proud to report that the Texas Democratic Party's ePrimary Poll has been a huge success. Because of your help spreading the word to our fellow Democrats, in just five short days, over 7,200 Texas Democrats have cast their vote for President!
That's over five times the number of Texas Republicans who cast their vote in last weekend's exclusive Straw Poll. And we're not done yet! With one more day left to vote, all Texas Democrats still have a chance to make their voices heard in the next presidential election.
The enormous participation in the TDP ePrimary Poll is evidence of a Democratic Party on the rise in the Lone Star State. While Texas Republicans had only third-string candidates and embarrassingly low turnout at their VIP-only Straw Poll last weekend, Democrats from every corner of the state are energized by our Party's strong field of presidential candidates and showing their excitement for 2008 in the ePrimary Poll.
Democrats believe our state and nation are better served when more people participate, and the ePrimary Poll is a way for all Texas Democrats to get involved in the primary process and weigh in as our Party selects a presidential nominee. Tell the country which Democrats you want to see take over the White House!
If you haven't voted in the ePrimary Poll, there's still time. Texas Democrats have until TOMORROW at 11:59pm to cast their vote for any one of our Democratic presidential candidates.
During the Texas Democratic Party's recent Town Hall Tour, I traveled nearly 10,000 miles and visited with thousands of Democrats. And I am proud to report that Texas Democrats are unified, energized and eager to win in 2008!
Like most Americans, Democrats from Texarkana to El Paso are tired of George Bush's failure and ready for a change in the White House. That's why I am very pleased to announce that the Texas Democratic Party is holding our first-ever ePrimary Poll, a weeklong online event that will give Texas Democrats a chance to support their favorite candidate for President.
Starting today, Democrats across the Lone Star State have the opportunity to cast their vote for any of our outstanding presidential candidates at the TDP website. After Republican leaders weakened the influence of Texas voters by failing to move up our state's primary election, the TDP is doing everything we can to ensure Texas Democrats have a say in determining the next president of the United States. Now is the time to make your voice heard!
Once, many of the issues we talk about on this blog were discussed mostly among Rust Belt labor unions or in street demonstrations. But tough questions are increasingly being asked in a variety of places, from the ivory tower to the campaign stump... and in both instances, the focus is on a change in the rules of globalization, rather than perpetuating the stale debate about whether "yes" or whether "no" on globalization. Witness Harvard's Dani Rodrik's new paper, articulating what he says is now the "new orthodoxy" on trade:
We can talk of a new conventional wisdom that has begun to emerge within multilateral institutions and among Northern academics. This new orthodoxy emphasizes that reaping the benefits of trade and financial globalization requires better domestic institutions, essentially improved safety nets in rich countries and improved governance in the poor countries.
Rodrik goes on to push this new orthodoxy further, articulating what he calls his "policy space" approach, allowing countries to negotiate around opting-in and opting-out more easily of international rules and schemes as their development and domestic needs merit. Citing the controversy around NAFTA's investor-state mechanism and the WTO's challenge of Europe's precautionary approach in consumer affairs, Rodrik poses the following challenge to the orthodoxy:
Globalization is a hot button issue in the advanced countries not just because it hits some people in their pocket book; it is controversial because it raises difficult questions about whether its outcomes are "right" or "fair." That is why addressing the globalization backlash purely through compensation and income transfers is likely to fall short. Globalization also needs new rules that are more consistent with prevailing conceptions of procedural fairness.
And this focus on a change of rules hit the political arena today, with a major policy speech by former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.). See here. Among the important points, that thus far are only being articulated by Edwards among the top candidates:
* For years now, Washington has been passing trade deal after trade deal that works great for multinational corporations, but not for working Americans. For example, NAFTA and the WTO provide unique rights for foreign companies whose profits are allegedly hurt by environmental and health regulations. These foreign companies have used them to demand compensation for laws against toxins, mad cow disease, and gambling - they have even sued the Canadian postal service for being a monopoly. Domestic companies would get laughed out of court if they tried this, but foreign investors can assert these special rights in secretive panels that operate outside our system of laws.
*The trade policies of President Bush have devastated towns and communities all across America. But let's be clear about something - this isn't just his doing. For far too long, presidents from both parties have entered into trade agreements, agreements like NAFTA, promising that they would create millions of new jobs and enrich communities. Instead, too many of these agreements have cost us jobs and devastated many of our towns.
*NAFTA was written by insiders in all three countries, and it served their interests - not the interests of regular workers. It included unprecedented rights for corporate investors, but no labor or environmental protections in its core text. And over the past 15 years, we have seen growing income inequality in the U.S., Mexico and Canada.
*Today, our trade agreements are negotiated behind closed doors. The multinationals get their say, but when one goes to Congress it gets an up or down vote - no amendments are allowed. No wonder that corporations get unique protections, while workers don't benefit. That's wrong.
So, our movement has made real progress when things like Chapter 11, Fast Track and the precautionary principle are even being discussed by politicians and academics in the context of trade policy debates. And hopefully Edwards' raising of these issues will put pressure on the other candidates to follow suit. In the meantime, you can help turn the nice words into action by clicking here.
I know we often make fun of lawyers in this country ("What do you call a smiling, sober, courteous person at a bar association convention? The caterer."). On the other hand, there's a lot to be said for the value of training in law for political leadership. The Clintons (Bill, Yale; Hillary, Yale), Barack Obama (Harvard), John Edwards (UNC), and Harry Reid (George Washington U.) all have law degrees.
Then we have our Republican mis-leadership. There's George Bush with an Master's in Business Administration. That's the same degree that Duke Cunningham and Jeff Skilling have. There's Rep. Shelley Moore Capito with a Master's in Career Counseling. That's the same degree as... well, actually, no one comes to mind. Bush and Capito share a mis-understanding of the law, too. Whereas Bush missed the week in high school civics class about constitutional checks and balances, after six years in Congress Rep. Capito still hasn't figured out the basic mechanics of when a law is needed.
Our tracking signals indicate that Dole rarely travels to North Carolina, whereas Miller seems to be in perpetual campaign motion there. And Republicans like Dole are out of favor for sticking so close to President Bush, are they not? We thus conclude that Miller would beat Dole like a tympanic skin-a drum, I believe you call it.
Ok, now that I have your attention, to the poll. This poll (link at bottom) consisted of 800 likely voters pulled from the voter rolls.
First, lets hit on the big and simple numbers.
Bush's approval in North Carolina is 37%, with 59% Disapproval.
This number has been fairly consistent for a while. If anything this number is worse than it has been in the past.
This is a diary of Presidential Endorsements that I will periodically update. It will include those I learn of and I make no pretensions of this being a comprehensive listing. I welcome comments that update endorsements as the election progresses as I plan to update this diary periodically. The more eyes we have looking, the more accurate this can be. I considered piggybacking the 2008 race tracker David set up as adding a line to the bio boxes would not be too time consuming, but will try a diary first.
I am attempting to track Members of Congress, Governors, State Party Chairs, former officeholders, and other politically prominent individuals like George Soros or Donald Trump.
If I missed any candidates in the tabs let me know. I plan to list the states and sublist by candidate. Will do Democrats then Republicans. The primaries are by states so listing by states can show where someone is running strong.
If I am not sure what state someone connects to I will list as unknown under the state of the candidate they're endorsing until I can place them more accurately.
Unless I can determine their home otherwise, I list anyone connected Hollywood under California, and move them later if I determine where exactly they do in fact live.
