The Senate Finance Committee approved its health care reform bill on a 14-9 vote yesterday, with all Democrats and Republican Olympia Snowe of Maine voting in favor. Ranking Republican Chuck Grassley, a key member of the committee’s “gang of six” negotiators this summer, joined the rest of the Republicans in voting against the bill. Speaking to the Des Moines Register Grassley “said he has no regrets about working with majority Democrats on the committee, only to oppose the bill. Given more time, he might have struck a deal, he said.”

This guy is the perfect picture of a bad-faith negotiator. From the Register:

Grassley said he objects most to provisions in the bill that would require Americans to obtain health insurance. But Grassley also said the bill does too little to block federal money being spent to provide abortions and provide coverage for illegal immigrants.

“Those aren’t the only things, but I think they are the most controversial or the most difficult to deal with,” Grassley told The Des Moines Register.

As Jason Hancock reported for the Iowa Independent last week, Grassley publicly supported the idea of an individual mandate to purchase health insurance this summer. I agree that requiring individuals to purchase insurance is problematic if there is no broad-based public health insurance option (because then the government is just subsidizing private insurers), but of course Grassley opposed the public option too.

In addition, the “gang of six” made changes in the bill before markup to address groundless Republican claims about illegal immigrants. According to PolitiFact, the “Baucus plan explicitly states that no federal funds – whether through tax credits or cost-sharing credits – could be used to pay for abortions (again, except for rape, incest, or the life of the mother).”

Trying to cut deals with Grassley is a waste of time. For more on that point, check out the skipper’s recent diary.

Speaking of Grassley, Cityview’s Civic Skinny thinks he should be worried about a potential race against attorney Roxanne Conlin. When a reporter asked Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack whether his wife, Christie Vilsack, might run against Grassley, he replied, “You should ask her about that.” (UPDATE: Dave Price did ask her and wonders whether she is the mystery candidate.)

As for the health care bill, the Finance Committee and HELP Committee versions have to be merged before a floor vote. It’s imperative that a public option be included in the version sent to the floor, and HELP Committee representative Chris Dodd says he will fight for that. On the other hand, Snowe and a few Democrats, like Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, might vote against the bill on the floor if it contains a public option. Chris Bowers wrote more at Open Left about the merging process in the House and Senate.

Senate Democrats have not given up on passing health care reform through normal procedures requiring at least 60 votes to overcome a Republican filibuster. The problem is, several conservative Senate Democrats are on record opposing a public health insurance option. Meanwhile, a bill with no public option will have trouble passing the House of Representatives, where the overwhelming majority of the Democratic caucus supports a robust public option tied to Medicare rates.

The obvious political solution is to include some watered-down public option in the bill, giving cover to Progressive Democrats who insist on a public option while placating House Blue Dogs and Senate conservatives who want to protect private insurers’ market share.

The “triggered” public option favored by many industry allies didn’t fly, because most Democrats understand that the trigger would never be pulled. This past week, a new possible compromise emerged:

It was pulled out of an alternative idea, put forth by Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) and, prior to him, former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, to give states the power to determine whether they want to implement a public insurance option.

But instead of starting with no national public option and giving state governments the right to develop their own, the newest compromise approaches the issue from the opposite direction: beginning with a national public option and giving state governments the right not to have one.

I consider this idea’s pros and cons after the jump.  

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.

The Senate will debate the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act today. Despite the heroic efforts of Senators Chris Dodd and Russ Feingold, all signs point toward capitulation by the Democrats.

Glenn Greenwald again tells you why you should care.

Daily Kos front-pager smintheus explains why the advocates touting this new, improved version of FISA are wrong about the oversight potential of inspectors-general.

The Barack Obama supporters against the FISA bill have been organizing at an incredible pace, but he indicated last week that he will vote for the bill. How far will he go in supporting various amendments offered by Senate Democrats?

I won’t be watching C-SPAN today, but if you are, feel free to “document the atrocities” in the comments (as Atrios might say).

UPDATE: mcjoan has more detail on the key votes that will take place today.

SECOND UPDATE: The FISA bill passed 69-28, with three not voting. McCain dodged another big vote.

The roll call vote is here:

http://www.senate.gov/legislat…

No surprises from the Iowa senators: Grassley voted yes, and Harkin voted no.

Obama voted yes, as expected. Hillary voted no.

Paul Rosenberg put up a post well worth your time if you are disturbed by the House vote on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Key point:

MapLight.org is reporting that House Democrats who changed their vote to support Telco immunity received much more, on average than their counterparts who did not change position.  This is a group correlation, of course.  Not all those who voted for immunity received more money than those who voted against.  Indeed, 11 of those who voted for immunity received nothing at all from the three Telcos.  But the group correlation is quite strong.

Click the link to find a chart listing all 94 House Democrats who voted against retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies on March 14, but voted for the FISA bill containing immunity on June 20. (Our own Leonard Boswell is in this group). The chart shows how much money each of them received in PAC contributions from AT&T, Sprint or Verizon.

Boswell is in the middle of the pack, having received $10,000. I wouldn’t assume those contributions are the only reason he has favored the telecommunications companies’ interests over protecting constitutional rights. But he does have a long history of voting with Republicans and corporate interests rather than with the majority of House Democrats on a lot of issues.

The Des Moines Register ran a strongly-worded editorial on FISA in the Wednesday edition:

Federal law authorizing secret intercepts of international communications may need amending to account for changes in technology and behavior of terrorist groups, but the job should be put off for a new Congress and a new president next year. In the current political climate, with an election looming, the temptation is to ram something – anything – through to avoid the accusation of being weak on terrorism, even if the constitutional privacy rights of American citizens are sacrificed in the process.

That apparently motivated 105 House Democrats to go along with 188 Republicans to give President Bush what the Washington Post described as “one of the last major victories he is likely to achieve.” That, along with the administration’s last-minute decision to allow the Democrats to toss in an additional $95 billion in domestic spending in a war-appropriations bill.

That’s a pathetically small price for authorizing this president, and future presidents, to ignore the 4th Amendment restrictions on “unreasonable searches and seizures.” […]

Those are just some of the problems with the House bill. It’s hard to say how many others exist, however, because there was precious little public debate. The operations of the spying program are classified secrets, and only a select few members of Congress have been clued in on how it works. Even legal experts are struggling to decipher the bill.

This is in stark contrast to 30 years ago, when the FISA law was enacted after months of public discussion, hearings and testimony. Changing the law implicating a fundamental constitutional right mandates nothing short of that same process today.

My only quibble with this editorial is where were the Register’s reporters on this issue during the third district primary campaign?

Boswell advocated retroactive immunity for telecoms in February, then changed his position in March. In early May, there was some speculation that he had cooperated with House Republicans to get this provision back on the table.

I tried for weeks to get Boswell’s office to comment on this issue and got the runaround. Naturally, they were not going to return phone calls from a blogger supporting Ed Fallon. But the Register’s Jane Norman or Thomas Beaumont could have at least forced Boswell to clarify where he stood on FISA before Iowa Democrats voted on June 3. Why didn’t the Register’s assignment editors give this issue some space this spring?

Glenn Greenwald has been writing extensively on FISA over at Salon, and I highly recommend his latest post, Chris Dodd’s speech and a glimmer of hope for stopping the FISA bill. It’s long and includes some great quotes from Dodd and Senator Russ Feingold, as well as many other links to good commentary on this issue.

Speaking of Feingold, Josh Orton of MyDD linked to the Progressive Patriots Fund Campaign Store. (Feingold is the honorary chair of that fund.) At the store you can buy t-shirts and mousepads with the slogan “Don’t Spy On Me” and a drawing of a telephone cord curled up like the famous Revolutionary War-era “Don’t Tread On Me” flag featuring a rattlesnake.

Ben Smith put up a post about Barack Obama’s prominent early supporters, who came on board when he was seen as having little chance of beating Hillary Clinton. Here is his list:

Senator Richard Durbin

Former Majority Leader Tom Daschle

Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller

Oprah Winfrey

Iowa Treasurer Mike Fitzgerald

Former Iowa Democratic Party Chairman Gordon Fischer

Ted Sorensen

Virginia Governor Tim Kaine

Alabama Rep. Artur Davis

New Hampshire Rep. Paul Hodes

It’s easy to forget now that Gordon Fischer was on the fence between Clinton and Obama for some time last summer. He told the story of how Obama’s campaign hooked him in an interview with New Yorker journalist Ryan Lizza:

Obama, who had sometimes seemed to eschew the details of campaigning which Clinton appears to revel in, has become more enmeshed in the state’s idiosyncratic politics. Consider the conquest of Gordon Fischer, a former chairman of the Iowa Democratic Party. Every campaign wanted Fischer’s endorsement, but the Obama campaign pursued him relentlessly. At a recent lunch at the Des Moines Embassy Club, a restaurant on the forty-first floor of the tallest building in the state, Fischer explained how Obama’s Iowa operatives used his closest friends to persuade him to back Obama. One, Lola Velázquez-Aguilú, managed to decorate part of Fischer’s house with photographs of Obama that featured thought bubbles asking for Fischer’s endorsement. (“Has anyone told you how great you look today?” an image of Obama taped to a mirror said. “So, are you ready to sign a supporter card?”) When Obama staffers learned that the late Illinois senator Paul Simon was a hero of Fischer’s, they asked Simon’s son-in-law, Perry Knop, to call Fischer and make the case for Obama. At one point, Obama himself invited Fischer onto his campaign bus and told him that he had to stay aboard until he agreed to an endorsement. When Fischer insisted that he had to make the decision with his wife, Monica, Obama demanded Monica’s cell-phone number, and he called her at once. “Monica, this is Barack Obama,” he said when her voice mail came on. “I’m with your husband here, and I’m trying to go ahead and close the deal for him to support my candidacy. . . . Discuss it over with your man. Hopefully we can have you on board.” The Fischers were sufficiently impressed to endorse him, two weeks later. “I think the Iowa campaign has been run better than the national campaign,” Fischer said.

When I read Lizza’s article last November, I showed that passage to my husband, who remarked, “That’s actually a really good argument for scrapping the caucuses.” I’m sure that wasn’t Fischer’s intention, though!

But I digress.

Ben Smith’s post reminded me that I’ve been meaning to put up a poll about which candidate had the best celebrity supporters.

For the purposes of this diary, I am focusing on celebrities who publicly endorsed or campaigned for a candidate. Lists of famous donors can be deceiving, since many rich and famous people give large sums to multiple candidates:

Actor Michael Douglas, for example, has contributed to five current and former Democratic presidential candidates. As of Sept. 30, the latest reports available, he had donated the maximum $4,600 $2,300 for the primary campaign and $2,300 for the general election to Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama, Bill Richardson and Chris Dodd, and $1,500 to Dennis Kucinich.

[…]

Another serial donor in the current election is Paul Newman, who gave the maximum contribution to Obama, Clinton, and Dodd, and $2,300 to Richardson.

Some donors have spread the wealth around but have decided to back one candidate. Barbra Streisand gave $2,300 each to Clinton, Edwards and Obama, and $1,000 to Dodd, but recently endorsed Clinton for president.

[…]

Steven Spielberg and Rob Reiner are two other celebrities who donated to multiple presidential candidates four a piece before settling on Clinton. Reiner also shot a spoof video for Clinton’s Web site.

Actress Mary Steenburgen gave money to both Edwards and Clinton, but has backed Clinton, a friend for three decades, from the get-go. Steenburgen, a native of Newport, Ark., met the Clintons when Bill Clinton was in his first term as governor of Arkansas.

Last month the Huffington Post published this piece on the top ten celebrities for Clinton and Obama. Here is their list for Obama:

1. Oprah

2. will.i.am

3. the Kennedy women (Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg and Maria Shriver)

4. Ben Affleck

5. George Clooney

6. Scarlett Johansson

7. Samuel L. Jackson

8. Chris Rock

9. Robert De Niro

10. Jennifer Aniston

At least I have heard of these people. When I first saw will.i.am’s “Yes We Can” video, I swear that the only person I recognized was Kareem Abdul Jabbar.

HuffPo’s list of top ten Clinton supporters:

1. Ellen DeGeneres

2. Elton John

3. Ted Danson and Mary Steenburgen

4. Jack Nicholson

5. Natalie Portman

6. Mario Lavandeira (I never heard of him, but apparently he is the celebrity blogger Perez Hilton)

7. America Ferrera (star of “Ugly Betty”)

8. Magic Johnson

9. Barbra Streisand

10. Eva Longoria Parker (star of “Desperate Housewives”)

The list of other famous people who have donated to Obama or Clinton is of course very long. I know that Bruce Springsteen and Tom Hanks are also public Obama supporters. If I’ve left out celebrities who played an important public role in either candidate’s campaign, please let me know in the comments.

John Edwards: A bunch of big Hollywood names donated to his campaign, but most of them did not play any public role, and many also gave money to other Democratic candidates.

I was fortunate enough to see one of the mini-concerts Bonnie Raitt and Jackson Browne did for Edwards in Iowa last November. They also campaigned for him in New Hampshire. Tim Robbins came to early-voting states to stump for Edwards as well. I heard from a friend who saw Robbins in Des Moines that his first comment to the crowd was, “I’m not Oprah.” Ben “Cooter” Jones, former Congressman and star of the tv show “Dukes of Hazzard,” also campaigned for Edwards in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.

UPDATE: I can’t believe I forgot that Madeleine Stowe, Kevin Bacon, and James Denton (of “Desperate Housewives” fame) also came to Iowa to help out Edwards. In addition, Danny Glover and Harry Belafonte endorsed Edwards. Jon Mellencamp not only supported Edwards, he also invited him on stage during a concert in Des Moines.

Bill Richardson: Again, a lot of big Hollywood names maxed out to his campaign, but most of them didn’t endorse him. The exception was Martin Sheen, who came to Iowa in December to go out on the stump with Richardson. Sheen endorsed Obama after Richardson dropped out.

Joe Biden: The famous people listed here as his donors mostly contributed to other candidates as well. I cannot recall any celebrities coming to Iowa to campaign with Biden, but please correct me in the comments if I am wrong. He was often accompanied by family members, especially his sons Beau and Hunter. (UPDATE: I forgot that Richard Schiff, who played Toby the communications guy on “The West Wing,” came to Iowa to campaign with Biden.)

Chris Dodd: Many of the famous people who donated to his campaign also donated to other candidates. However, it is worth mentioning that singer-songwriter Paul Simon campaigned with Dodd in Iowa last July, and former Democratic Senatorial candidate Ned Lamont campaigned with Dodd in Iowa last November.

Dennis Kucinich: Viggo Mortensen came to New Hampshire to campaign with Kucinich after the candidate was left out of the last presidential debate before that state’s primary. Apparently Sean Penn gave Kucinich money during the 2004 campaign.

I am not aware of any celebrity supporters of Mike Gravel.

Click “there’s more” to take the poll after the jump.

Poligirl wrote a good diary about an op-ed piece by Elizabeth Edwards in today’s New York Times: “Bowling 1, Health Care 0.”

She slammed the media for its superficial coverage of the presidential campaign during the past year, and particularly during the weeks leading up to the Pennsylvania primary:

Did you, for example, ever know a single fact about Joe Biden’s health care plan? Anything at all? But let me guess, you know Barack Obama’s bowling score. We are choosing a president, the next leader of the free world. We are not buying soap, and we are not choosing a court clerk with primarily administrative duties.

Political junkie that I am, I do know something about Joe Biden’s health care plan (no thanks to the mainstream media). Elizabeth Edwards tells it like it is:

What’s more, the news media cut candidates like Joe Biden out of the process even before they got started. Just to be clear: I’m not talking about my husband. I’m referring to other worthy Democratic contenders. Few people even had the chance to find out about Joe Biden’s health care plan before he was literally forced from the race by the news blackout that depressed his poll numbers, which in turn depressed his fund-raising.

And it’s not as if people didn’t want this information. In focus groups that I attended or followed after debates, Joe Biden would regularly be the object of praise and interest: “I want to know more about Senator Biden,” participants would say.

But it was not to be. Indeed, the Biden campaign was covered more for its missteps than anything else. Chris Dodd, also a serious candidate with a distinguished record, received much the same treatment. I suspect that there was more coverage of the burglary at his campaign office in Hartford than of any other single event during his run other than his entering and leaving the campaign.

Who is responsible for the veil of silence over Senator Biden? Or Senator Dodd? Or Gov. Tom Vilsack? Or Senator Sam Brownback on the Republican side?

The decision was probably made by the same people who decided that Fred Thompson was a serious candidate.

I said many times last year that if Biden had the media hype Obama was getting, he would be a strong contender for the nomination. He had a great stump speech and performed better in every debate than Obama did, but all you heard from the leading analysts was that Biden was a gaffe machine.

Thanks again to poligirl for including a link to an audio interview of Elizabeth Edwards talking about her op-ed piece.

How many presidential campaigns will our infotainment complex get wrong before they finally give people the news coverage they deserve?

Bleeding Heartland readers, I would be interested in your views on how the Iowa caucuses might have turned out differently.

Let’s assume that Barack Obama runs the exact campaign he ran last year in terms of strategy and execution, and has the same monetary resources he had available.

What, if anything, could other candidates have done to beat Obama in Iowa? Keep in mind that both Clinton and Edwards executed their strategies pretty well in Iowa (in my opinion), with

both of them getting more than 70,000 people to stand in their corners on January 3. That “should” have been enough to win, even if turnout had been “only” 50 percent greater than the previous record for Iowa Democrats.

Given the Obama campaign’s excellent strategy and execution, as well as their virtually unlimited monetary resources in Iowa, what could other candidates have done to win the Iowa caucuses?

These are examples of the kinds of questions I’m interested in:

Should Hillary have used Bill more, or used him less?

Would it have helped Clinton or Edwards to go negative on Obama?

Were there better methods Clinton could have used to identify and turn out supporters?

Was there anything Richardson could have done in the summer to build on the bump he got from his television commercials in May?

Would Edwards have done better if his stump speech and advertising had focused on different issues?

Should Edwards have spent some money on advertising in the summer, when he slipped behind Clinton in the Iowa polls, rather than keeping his powder dry?

Feel free to post your insights about these and similar questions on this thread.

Alternatively, if you have thoughts you’d rather keep off the record, please e-mail them to me at desmoinesdem AT yahoo.com, or e-mail me your phone number and I will call you to chat. I will keep your views confidential.

Chris Dodd and Joe Biden have both decided to leave the presidential race and will be going back to the Senate.  I wish them the best of luck.  In the extended entry, you can read Dodd’s remarks to supporters and you can read the release from Biden’s campaign.

On behalf of Iowa Democrats and the Bleeding Heartland community, let me say thank you to both Senators for their remarkable fight and effort they put into the caucuses.  Without Biden, we wouldn’t be able to have the serious debate about the future of Iraq like we’ve been able to have.  Without Dodd, things like FISA and restoring the Constitution would have been tossed aside.  These men have extraordinary experience and are good leaders for the Democratic party.

We Iowans are interesting people.  Of all the Senators and former Senators in the race, we picked the one with the least experience in that institution.  Maybe it is because of his message of hope, of unity, of change.  But we also looked past a combined 50+ years of experience in the Senate.  Is that a bad thing?  I don’t know.  I hope not.

However, these two men can now head back to the Senate and keep working hard for our majorities in Congress.  And pressing this reckless President for change.  Dodd can keep fighting and filibustering.  And who knows, maybe we’ll see one of these men later on as a vice president.

Or maybe as the new Senate Democratic leader.

One more time, thank you!

Iowa's state flag reads “Our liberties we prize and our rights we will maintain.”

What a fitting motto for the state that tonight will serve as the proving ground for the Democratic field.

In little over a year, a new President will be sworn into the Oval Office. That person will be tasked with many jobs from Day One, but perhaps none is more important than the restoration of our Constitution following eight years of abuse at the hands of the Bush administration.

While Iowans spend the last three hours or so before the caucus pondering which candidate they will stand with, I hope they take the time to look at their state flag. Re-read their state motto. Then make their decision.

Only one candidate has made standing up for the Constitution central to his campaign.

Only one candidate authored a book this year about our nation's proudest moment standing up for the rule of law.

Only one candidate left the campaign trail to return to Washington and stop another assault on our rights.

Only one candidate has pledged that on the very first hour of the very first day, he will restore the Constitution of the United States of America.

Our liberties we prize and our rights we will maintain.

Iowans, the time is now: Caucus for Chris Dodd, because he, above all others, will use his presidency to not just maintain our rights, but restore and protect them. We know he will do that in 2009, because he's already doing it now, in 2007 and 2008.

So stand by your state's motto and please stand for Chris Dodd tonight.

A day before the Iowa caucus, the Des Moines Register is running a long profile piece on Senator Dodd. The article goes into great detail on his record of bringing people together to get results and be a force for positive, progressive change over his twenty-six year career in the Senate.

Here's a clip from the article:

Chris Dodd says voters want more than a symbol of change – they want real change.

Dodd, a U.S. senator from Connecticut, has relied on his experience as he has pursued a longshot bid for the Democratic presidential nomination.

He often points to changes he has made in the American policy landscape, including writing the Family and Medical Leave Act and helping reform election laws.

He was one of the authors of the Help America Vote Act, which his staff said was the first major step the country took toward reforming election law after the controversial 2000 election in Florida.

That act provided grant money to states to upgrade their election systems and put provisions in place to make polling more accessible for the disabled.

“I'm a great advocate of change, and on the cutting edge of it,” Dodd said.

The Family and Medical Leave Act requires employers to grant eligible employees a total of 12 workweeks of unpaid leave for reasons such as the birth of a child or to care for an immediate family member with a serious health condition.

Dodd calls the legislation the “most significant health care reform since Medicare reform” and as president, said he wants to expand the coverage to include paid leave.

Dodd's policy vision is also punctuated by his often-stated concern to preserve the Constitution, a copy of which he carries in his pocket every day.

It's always interesting to see which pieces of legislation or achievements reporters choose to highlight from Chris Dodd's record. Frankly, with a leader who's gotten as much done as Dodd has throughout his career, the task his daunting. Just ask Mike Caulfield about how many hours it took for him to whittle down the scores of stories he researched while writing his endorsement post.

In the article Dodd also talks about the virtue of public service as a calling for those who want to help as many people as they can.

“He said there's no other calling in life where you can do as much for as many people as you can through public service,” Dodd said at the debate. “Lawyers only have so many clients, doctors only so many patients, but a well-intentioned public servant can make a difference in the lives of millions of people. That's my motivation. I want to carry that tradition on. That's why I'm running for president.”

I can't think of a more admirable reason for a person to seek the presidency than this – it's one of the reasons I'm proud to be working for Chris Dodd.

I’ve been feeling for months that in December, when undecided Iowans started making up their minds, there would be significant movement toward one of the second-tier candidates. Some politically active Democrats are not satisfied with any of the top-tier candidates and are willing to give underdogs a chance.

This diary is about how Joe Biden, Bill Richardson and Chris Dodd are campaigning in Iowa, how I think they will do on January 3, and how their showing could affect John Edwards, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

A few other observations related to these candidates’ prospects can be found in How the Iowa caucuses work, part 8, which you may not have seen over the weekend.

Much more is after the jump.

I took this picture inside our phone banking room in the Des Moines HQ. Amidst copies of the Des Moines Register, call logs, talking points, fact sheets of Chris Dodd's record of results and lots of empty coffee cups, I saw a print out of Blue Hampshire co-founder Mike Caulfield's endorsement post.

People often ask what the value of blogger endorsements is and I think this is evidence of it. Mike's argument in support of Chris Dodd, like that made by many other bloggers, is a thoughtful presentation of why Democrats should support Dodd's candidacy. It's exactly the sort of thing that volunteers and field staff find useful when talking to voters here in Iowa. Beyond that, it's great to have the encouragement of someone writing outside the campaign to pick you up in the midst of a long phone banking session.

Today, I'm heading on the road to cover Senator Dodd's events in Waterloo at one of my favorite restaurants in all of Iowa, Steamboat Gardens. From there, I'll head with the Senator to Dubuque for our campaign's New Year's Eve event.

I'll be staying on the road on New Year's Day to cover events in Cedar Rapids and a few other stops. I'll be posting videos and pictures from the road, as well as writing about the events as the Dodd campaign heads into the new year and towards the Iowa caucus on January 3rd.

Stay tuned for more updates from Iowa on the Dodd Blog.

On January 3rd Iowans will be making a critical choice on behalf of the nation. The people here helping Chris Dodd are taking part in history here over the closing days before the caucus. I'm going to try to tell that story over the next week and give you a window into the Dodd campaign. Throughout our campaign I've covered hundreds of Dodd events. For the most part, I've eschewed writing the typical campaign blog posts cheering on how great the events are or how positive the crowds response is, because frankly, I think it's better to let the video from Dodd events do the talking for me. Now, though, I want to use my time in Iowa to show as much as I can what's happening on the ground.

After a hectic day of travel filled with missed and delayed flights, I arrived in Iowa last night to a bustling Dodd Headquarters in Des Moines. “Bustling” is a word you'll hear bandied about a lot when campaigns talk about the activity in their offices around Iowa this week, but to be honest it hardly covers what's going on. The winding halls of Dodd HQ were filled with staffers and volunteers fulfilling a range of tasks – planning the events between now and the caucus, calling Iowans to ask them to support Senator Dodd, honing the closing argument for Chris Dodd, keeping our web presence dynamic, and much, much more.

Last night Senator Dodd was on Countdown with Keith Olbermann. A bunch of staffers watched his appearance at Lucky's, the bar next door to the office. We weren't the only ones, though — there was a buzz from people responding to Senator Dodd's mature leadership talking about the Benazir Bhutto's assassination. The next President is going to encounter issues that we haven't talked about in this campaign, and the question Iowans are going to be asking themselves “who do they trust to know what they are doing when that happens?”

This morning we awoke to snow in Des Moines. A few inches fell overnight and it's continuing to come down steadily. Fortunately for me, Erik Moe, our art director, is a Minnesotan with a lifetime of experience driving in the snow and muck, and he ensured the trip to the office this morning was a safe one.

First off the bat, we recorded two videos with Senator Dodd (which you'll be seeing shortly). Tim Tagaris took   this picture of Senator Dodd and I talking about the response online to his efforts to stop retroactive immunity from being part of FISA legislation. The Senator was humbled by the scale of support he received from the netroots in this fight and is committed to continuing it when the Senate returns in January. This is a team effort and together we can win this fight for good.

As I write this post now, people are working hard to prepare for a rally that will be taking place at our HQ in just a few minutes. We'll be posting pictures and video from at just as soon as we can, so you'll be able to see what the mobilization for Chris Dodd in Iowa looks like even if you can't be here to take part.

Stay tuned for more updates at The Dodd Blog.

Disclosure: I proudly work for Chris Dodd's presidential campaign.

cross-posted at Daily Kos and MyDD

A few weeks ago I wrote a diary on where the Democratic presidential candidates have field offices in Iowa.

My purpose was to document the information so that after January 3, we can see whether campaigns with the most field offices did better in the counties where rivals had field organizers and volunteers working without the visibility of an office.

I am publishing a new version of this diary because several campaigns have added more field offices this month. Also, someone at the Iowa Democratic Party informed me of slight adjustments to the number of state delegates awarded by a handful of counties.

More information than you probably wanted to know is after the jump.

The Boston Globe has an article by Charlie Savage – the journalist whose investigation first brought President Bush's use of signing statements to light – about the various positions by Democratic and Republican candidates on executive powers. Here are a few of the most direct answers to critically important questions that the tenure of the Bush administration has raised to date.

4. Under what circumstances, if any, would you sign a bill into law but also issue a signing statement reserving a constitutional right to bypass the law?

Never. If I thought it was unconstitutional, I would turn to the Courts, which is what our founding fathers expected and provided for in cases of Executive-Congressional differences.

5. Does the Constitution permit a president to detain US citizens without charges as unlawful enemy combatants?

No.

6. Does executive privilege cover testimony or documents about decision-making within the executive branch not involving confidential advice communicated to the president himself?

No.

What's remarkable, I think, is that Senator Dodd's dedication to upholding the Constitution and the balance of powers requires this sort of answer to these sorts of questions, though you won't see the GOP candidates or top Republican talking heads giving the same consideration to these issues. Standing up for the rule of law makes us more safe at home. We need a President who will stand up for these issues, even if it means rolling back some of the powers and practices used by the Bush administration in contravention to the Constitution and at the expense of the balance of powers between the executive, legislative, and judiciary branch.

You can read Senator Dodd's full response to the Globe's questionnaire here.

Today is a big day in the Senate. Majority leader Harry Reid has decided not to honor Chris Dodd’s hold on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Dodd objects to a provision that would grant retroactive immunity to telecom companies that illegally helped the U.S. government spy on Americans.

For background on the issue and Dodd’s filibuster plans, see this diary by DavidNYC and this diary by drational. The Senate Judiciary Committee approved a version of this bill that would not give retroactive immunity to telecoms, but unfortunately, Reid is going to introduce the version that came out of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, which would grant immunity.

In light of some Senate Democrats’ inability to stand up to the Bush administration on a whole range of issues lately, I am not optimistic that we will find 41 votes to uphold Dodd’s filibuster. Or, to put it another way, I fear that the other side will easily get enough Democrats on board to reach the 60 votes needed to break Dodd’s filibuster.

But let’s all hope I am wrong.

Memo to Senators Clinton, Obama, and Biden, who often tout their leadership qualities on the stump: show us you’re a leader by standing with Dodd today.

UPDATE: Head over to Daily Kos (www.dailykos.com) and MyDD (www.mydd.com), where several posters and diarists are keeping us all up to date on what’s going on today in the Senate. Video clips of Dodd speaking on the Senate floor are at MyDD.

SECOND UPDATE: The maneuvering was a little confusing today, but Dodd was able to buy us some time as Harry Reid pulled consideration of this bill until next month. Watch Dodd explain who helped him accomplish this and what still needs to be done:

Thank you, Senator Dodd. He’s my second choice, and I will absolutely try to help him get a delegate in my precinct if I can do so without costing John Edwards a delegate.

They are revealing.

Looking at this piece by the editorial page editor, Carol Hunter, you can see that even they feel a little guilty that they didn’t endorse Biden:

http://www.desmoinesregister.c…

Also, this piece on “rating the other candidates” has some fascinating passages:

http://www.desmoinesregister.c…

It’s clear that they almost went with Biden:

Even in our last major round of deliberations, we kept coming back to the question, “Why not Joe Biden?”

Many of the arguments we have made on behalf of the tested leadership of Sens. Hillary Clinton and John McCain apply to Biden as well. He knows how to get legislation passed. He, too, has deep foreign-policy expertise. We’re inspired by his fierce defense of civil liberties. His work on legislation to combat domestic violence has no doubt prevented injuries and saved lives. He might, indeed, make a good president.

But spending virtually his entire adult life in the Senate also makes his experience somewhat narrower than that of some other candidates. And in making sometimes slim distinctions in this talented bunch, we see his well-known loquaciousness as a weakness. It reflects a certain lack of discipline, and it’s gotten him into trouble on occasion with ill-considered remarks related to race. (We do, however, wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment expressed uniformly by his campaign rivals that his heart is in the right place.)

It’s also clear that they don’t disagree with Edwards on anything of substance:

We still believe he’s right about two Americas, the one for people who have everything they need and the one for people who struggle to get by. He’s right about the stagnation of middle-class wages. He’s right that the tax system and overall economic policy have become too tilted toward the affluent, making it virtually impossible for poor and middle-class families to get ahead.

He’s right that the baby-boomer generation risks breaking the “one moral commandment” of Americans: “To give our children a better future than we received.”

Edwards is most persuasive when he appeals to America’s goodness to do better by the vulnerable among us, as he did in last week’s Register Democratic debate:

“…Somewhere in America tonight, a child will go to bed hungry. Somewhere in America tonight, a family will have to go to the emergency room and beg for health care for a sick child. …Somewhere in America today, a father who’s worked for 30 or 40 years to support his family will lose his job. That’s what’s at stake in this election. What’s not at stake are any of us. All of us are going to be just fine, no matter what happens in this election. What’s at stake is whether America is going to be fine.”

Edwards has set the ambitious goal of eliminating poverty in a generation. He’s developed creative proposals to help families save and make college more affordable. (Other Democrats have outlined similar plans.) Edwards or whoever is the party’s standard-bearer should work to take those plans to the White House.

The question on Edwards is whether a self-described fighter for change, who wants to “cast aside the bankrupt ways of Washington,” can get results in Washington. For someone trying to reunite the two Americas, would he be too divisive a figure?

This part of their analysis on Barack Obama also tells you a lot about the people on the Register editorial board:

One board member described the case for Obama in the Clinton vs. Obama discussion as a bank shot versus a straight shot in pool. Success is less certain with a bank shot, but the gamble (in this case for a more cohesive, hopeful country) might be worth it.

Another veteran editorial writer described the choice as similar to picking Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a calculating but masterful politician at maneuvering needed legislation through Congress, versus John F. Kennedy, whose youthful vigor inspired the nation to take on new challenges. That’s not a bad choice.

This endorsement shows how risk-averse the Register editors are. They were worried about a few gaffes Biden has made (as if Clinton doesn’t have 10 times as much baggage). They didn’t want someone who would antagonize corporate interests like Edwards, even though they can’t point to anything he’s wrong about. And they think Obama would be too big of a gamble.

They also fondly remember FDR for his “calculating” skills at maneuvering legislation through Congress.

Although I don’t doubt FDR’s talents in this area, I think of him first and foremost as someone who had tremendous vision. He didn’t shy away from proposing huge changes to deal with the crises of the day, even if they were a gamble, and even if they risked upsetting the powerful corporate interests of his day.

Also, FDR was a very combative and partisan president. He did his best to pin every economic failure onto the Republican Party, and his presidency succeeded in realigning American voters for a generation.

That’s very different from the Register’s praise of Hillary’s legislative skills in reaching across the aisle.

Just wanted to bring this piece to your attention.

Today's Des Moines Register Democratic Presidential debate, as usual, will be clocked by the Dodd campaign. Here's the famed Talk Clock:

You can get the embed code to put the Talk Clock on your blog here.

Live from Dodd HQ (warning: no sound):

This is a view inside the Internet office – where the clocking takes place, as well as our other Dodd-related interactions in Teh Tubez.

 We're looking forward to this debate and once again expect Chris Dodd to stand out as the best candidate for the Presidency.

The Edwards campaign announced today that they have opened 10 new field offices in Iowa in recent weeks. I have updated my diary on Where the Iowa field offices are accordingly.

As of today, 42 Iowa counties have at least one field office for a Democratic presidential candidate. The current tally of Iowa field offices is:

Barack Obama 37 (includes two in Des Moines)

Hillary Clinton 34 (includes two in Dubuque and two in Cedar Rapids)

John Edwards 25

Bill Richardson 16

Chris Dodd 13

Joe Biden 9 (with possibly two more to be added)

Click the link if you want more detailed information.

Google Trends is a neat little tool created by Google to chart how popular a search term has been over a given length of time–in the standard search, it's a few years' time. The tool then links spikes in search volume to news stories that came out about the time of the spike in public interest in the term. It also tells the top three cities where people are looking for this term. I ran the full names of the top democratic candidates through this tool and I'll share the results with you in no particular order.

Check it out for yourself:  http://www.google.com/trends

“Hillary Clinton”:
Peaked: Jan 21, 2007
Story: Entered 2008 race
Trending: flat for most of 2007, up since August
Top Three Cities: Washington DC; New York, NY; Boston, MA

“Barack Obama”:
Peaked: July 27, 2004
Story: 2004 Convention Speech
Trending: flat for most of 2007, up sharply this last week
Top Three Cities: Chicago, IL; Washington DC; Austin, TX 

“John Edwards”: 
Peaked:  July 6,2004
Story: Picked as Kerry's running mate
Trending:  Flat
Top Three Cities: Raleigh, NC; Washington DC; Boston, MA

“Bill Richardson”: 
Peaked: Jan 21, 2007
Story: Entered 2008 race
Trending: Flat
Top Three Cities: Santa Fe, NM; Albuquerque, NM; Washington DC

“Joe Biden”:
Peaked: Jan 31, 2007
Story: Entered Race/made controversial comments
Trending: up sharply since August
Top Three Cities: Washington DC; Reston, VA; Philadelphia, PA

“Chris Dodd”:
Peaked: sometime in October 2007
Story: Unknown
Trending: up for the year, down since October's inexplicable peak
Top Three Cities: Meriden, CT; Hartford, CT; Des Moines, IA

For the record, can anyone explain why Dodd would have seen a spike in searches for his name around late October? 

cross-posted at MyDD and Daily Kos

I decided to write this diary when I learned that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton each have more than 30 field offices in Iowa.

After January 3, we will see whether campaigns with the most field offices did better in the counties where rivals had field organizers and volunteers working without the visibility of an office.

More information than you probably wanted to know is after the jump.

I have listed the counties in descending order, based on the number of state delegates they will assign on the Democratic side. I took the numbers from this post by Drew Miller, who calculated how many state delegates each Iowa county would contribute to the 2,500 total. [UPDATE: I corrected the delegate totals for a few counties after hearing from Drew Miller.]

I also give the 2004 caucus results for each county. Those numbers come from this table on the Des Moines Register’s website. The results reflect the percentage of county delegates assigned to the various presidential candidates (not the percentage of raw votes each one received in the county).  

I’ve got to say that Bush and the Democratic Presidential candidates are pulling the wool over our eyes on the housing crises.

On freezing interest rates for subprime loans, Bush’s plan today is a total crock. The NY Times reports his plan would “exclude many — if not most — subprime borrowers” including those who are delinquent on their payments. In a nutshell it’s a sham.

But what’s worse: a President no one trusts making promises no one believes or the Democratic candidates presumably trying to replace him covertly aiding and abetting his policies?

Jesse Jackson spelled out the problem recently, noting nearly every single Democratic candidate lacks an agenda to promote African American issues while condescendingly expecting votes from that community. Presidential candidate Senator Chris Dodd is a key example. While loudly denouncing Bush for allowing the housing crises to precipitate, as Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, he has been helping Bush’s HUD Secretary Alphonso Jackson to close the last remaining resource for helping homebuyers avoid predatory loans. Senator Dodd is siding with Republicans in the Senate to oppose Maxine Water’s and Barney Frank’s bill in the House to save downpayment assistance programs, which allow nonprofits to help working families with the 3% downpayment necessary for Federally insured home loans.

The posturing on this is reaching new heights….but where is the press in uncovering the double talk? Absent as usual.

John Deeth posted an update on legislative endorsements, along with a helpful chart showing which candidates Iowa Democratic legislators endorsed in 2004, and which counties the legislators represent.

The latest tally is Clinton 19, Obama 18, Biden 14, Edwards 10, Dodd 3 and Richardson 1. 

Deeth's chart also shows who has yet to endorse, and who those legislators backed (if anyone) four years ago. 

I listened to most of the NPR debate this afternoon. Although I am usually more interested in hearing the candidates debate domestic policy, I thought it was good for NPR to go in depth on a few foreign-policy issues. The questions were solid and substantive, and the candidates had to go beyond their usual sound-bite answers on Iran, China and immigration policy.

It’s too bad Richardson couldn’t make it because of a funeral he was attending, because the format probably would have suited him. I have heard him answer questions on immigration, and he makes a strong case on that issue.

I thought Edwards, Obama, Clinton, Biden and Dodd all did pretty well.

If you listened to the debate, what did you think?

Mark Halperin’s post-debate scorecard is here:

http://thepage.time.com/excerp…

Here are video clips from yesterday’s Heartland Presidential Forum, sponsored by the Center for Community Change.

<!–break–>

When the presidential candidates release plans to deal with important issues, such as education, global warming, or veterans’ affairs, the Des Moines Register more often than not buries the story in the middle pages of the Metro Iowa section.

That is especially true for the second-tier candidates.

Tuesday morning I picked up the Register and saw a photo of Chris Dodd and Joe Biden on the front page of the main section. Wow, that’s unusual. But what do you think the story was about?

Both Dodd, a senator from Connecticut, and Biden, a senator from Delaware, each are hoping to emerge and knock out a front-runner. But both facing an increasing amount of questions about whether they are different enough for voters to tell them apart.

Increasing amount of questions? From whom? I talk to Democratic caucus-goers literally every day, and while I have heard undecided voters praise Dodd and Biden many times, I have never heard anyone express concern that they may not be different enough for voters to tell them apart.

The Register goes on to tell us that Dodd and Biden get along well, charter planes together sometimes, and are “old school” senators. It mentions a recent Saturday Night Live sketch making fun of their similarities and quotes experts suggesting they are political insiders who lack “sex appeal.”

I expect meaningless process stories from most of the national press corps, but couldn’t the Des Moines Register at least pretend to cover the substance of the campaign on the front page?

Haven’t the Register reporters who cover the town-hall meetings and house parties all over this state noticed that caucus-goers want to hear where the candidates stand on the issues?

That is especially the case for the second-tier candidates, because most Iowans are less familiar with their records. Dodd and Biden have plenty to say about how they would govern and what their priorities would be–not that you’d get any idea about that from the article.

I noticed this quote near the bottom of the piece:

Kathy Elsner, a dentist in Des Moines who supports Dodd, said voters should look seriously at people running for president, and not just their campaign style.

Please, Des Moines Register editors, take Elsner’s advice and assign your reporters to compare and contrast the candidates’ proposals for dealing with the issues.

This Wednesday at 8PM Eastern, the Republican Presidential candidates will be holding their own YouTube debate. Similar to the Democratic version in South Carolina in July, the candidates will be asked questions via YouTube videos. YouTube accepted thousands of videos and those submissions will be winnowed down to a handful that are presented as questions for the GOP. Senator Dodd jumped on the opportunity to ask the Republican field a question about the issue that matters most to him: protecting our Constitution.

Here's a transcript of Dodd's question:

Hi I'm Chris Dodd. I'm from East Haddam, Connecticut and my family and I are spending a little time in Iowa these days.

I have a question about the Constitution.

Many Americans are concerned that the administration seems to be making a false choice, that is, to be safer we have to give up rights. I don't believe that, I wonder if you do.

And if you believe that we ought not give up our rights, then what would you do in order to protect our Constitution?

It's up to CNN to pick which questions are asked, but what would help them see it is if you take the time to give it a good recommendation, leave a positive comment, share it with your friends, or add it to your favorite videos. If you have a blog, post it. The time to ask your own questions of the Republican field has expired, now it's time to push the best videos to the top and get the Republican candidates on record about what they will do to protect our Constitution.

Jamison Foser of Media Matters recently documented the lack of discussion of the Constitution and rule of law issues during both parties' presidential debates. With over 1,500 questions asked, there's been almost no focus on the most fundamental issue that the next President will have to deal with. Senator Dodd is hoping to change that by asking the Republican field what they will do to protect the Constitution. I hope they get a chance to answer Dodd's important question.

Cross posted at Daily Kos.

The Senate Judiciary Committee is going to mark up the FISA reform legislation tomorrow. They had originally scheduled to do it last Thursday, but we expect it to happen this time, though it's not clear that the SJC will complete mark up tomorrow.

The bottom line is that now is the time to call the Senate Judiciary Committee and ask them to oppose retroactive immunity for telecom companies that helped the Bush administration spy on Americans without warrant.

We want the Senate to hear your voice on this issue — we think it's so important that we're paying for you to do the calls. Call today – and the Dodd campaign will do the dialing for you, making it free for anyone calling for a hardline to talk to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Four Senators on the Judiciary Committee have already said they oppose retroactive immunity. We need just six more Senators to oppose retroactive immunity to kill it in committee.

Visit http://chrisdodd.com/immunity to take action now!

Christy Hardin Smith also brings up basket warrants and Emptywheel brings up minimization as other key issues that the FISA legislation needs improvement on.

Call now and report the results back:

http://chrisdodd.com/immunity

Cross posted at Blue Hampshire, My Left Nutmeg and the Dodd Blog.

Senator Dodd's speech Saturday night at the Iowa Jefferson Jackson Dinner was truly electric. What really blew me away was his opening remarks on restoring the Constitution and standing up for the rule of law. He dedicated six minutes – a third of his speech – to the issue. While I've heard him talk about why he cares about the Constitution literally hundreds of times, his speech struck a chord in me on Saturday night. Maybe you felt the same energy hearing him rattle off the wrongs he will right as President.

Maybe it's because our country deserves a President who will do the things he pledges to do when he takes the oath of office. Or maybe it's because Chris Dodd is the only person who's stepping up now to do something about the problems he's talking about…but I thought Senator Dodd defined himself on Saturday night as the person that our country needs to be our next President.

Restoring the Constitution isn't just something Yale Law professors and liberal bloggers care about – Americans around the country of all political stripes are longing for leadership committed to returning our government to the rule of law. We saw that clearly Saturday night, as nearly 10,000 Iowans responded to Chris Dodd's commitment to act according to his oath as President. A desire to stand up for and preserve the Constitution is intrinsic in patriotic Americans, and we saw that patriotism come out at the Iowa JJ Dinner.

The bottom line is that when Senator Dodd campaigns on the Constitution, he's not making an argument about himself. The Constitution isn't about him and he's not so foolish as to think so. It's about who we are as a country and how our government is supposed to work. Saturday night, that humble understanding was rewarded with eruptions of applause.

Here's a transcript of what Senator Dodd commits to on the very first hour of his very first day in office:

  “This much I commit to you here in Iowa this evening. On the very first hour, of the very first day on January 20, 2009, as I have fought for over the last number of years in this administration — I will restore to the American people, the Constitution of the United States.”

  “You're gonna get your Constitution back! You're gonna get your Constitution back.”

  “No more Abu Ghraibs!”

  “No more Guantanamos!”

  “No more torture!”

  “No more rendering!”

  “No more providing retroactive immunity for companies that turned over their records to the Bush Administration without a court order!”

  “No more waterboarding!”

  “No more denying people habeas corpus in this country, a right that has existed for 900 years!”

  “And there will be no more Attorney Generals of the United States who believe an American President is above the law.”

  “That's gonna change.”

If you missed it, you can watch the whole speech here.

The San Francisco Chronicle has reported that California Democratic Senator Diane Feinstein will support retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies. This puts the official tally at two votes in favor and four votes opposed to telecom amnesty. We still need to convince six more Senators on the Judiciary Committee to oppose retroactive immunity to ensure that it is killed in Committee and doesn't reach the floor of the Senate.

This means one of the “nay” votes has to come from a Republican member of Committee, which does not seem incredibly likely. The Republican who we'd previously targeted as most likely to vote the right was was Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. Since Specter has also introduced a proposal that would indemnify the telecom companies by making the federal government sole defendant in all of the pending cases against the industry. This proposal – retroactive immunity by another name – makes it look unlikely that Specter will oppose other forms of immunity.

There are two paths from here:

First, we must continue to call all members of the Senate Judiciary who aren't currently opposed and ask them to oppose retroactive immunity. Everyone is not opposed needs to hear from the public on this issue – even conservative Republicans – because the Constitution and rule of law are not partisan issues, nor should they be.

Second, if you're feeling discouraged by the increased chances of amnesty for telecoms making it out of the Judiciary Committee, remember that Senator Dodd has vowed to stop any such legislation from becoming law, either through a hold or by filibuster if necessary. Dodd will stand up for the rule of law. He will defend the Constitution.

Now is the time to take action, though. Chris Dodd won't wait until 2009 to lead and we shouldn't wait until 2009 to stand up for what we believe in.

Call the Senate Judiciary Committee – we'll do the dialing for you through our Citizen Generated Whip Count calling tool: http://chrisdodd.com/immunity

eRiposte at The Left Coaster has a very comprehensive analysis of where the various current and former Senator-candidates stood on various pieces of bankruptcy reform legislation. The post covers the 2000, 2002, and 2005 Bankruptcy Bills and compares Senators Dodd, Clinton, Edwards, Obama, and Biden — with Senators Lieberman and Feingold included as well for comparison. The focus of eRiposte's analysis is on the 2001 and 2005 Bankruptcy Bills, which had the majority of this group of senators around to vote on it.

On the 2001 Bankruptcy Bill, eRiposte says this:

Sen. Dodd (and Sen. Feingold) had the best voting record on this version of the Bill. They voted the progressive position on almost every amendment, but more importantly, also voted against cloture (which has the effect of supporting a filibuster) and voted against the Bill at the end.

On the 2005 Bankruptcy Bill, eRiposte finds a similarly strong performance for Dodd ahead of the field:

Senator Dodd again had the best, and an essentially perfect, voting record on this Bill. He voted in favor of numerous progressive amendments, voted against invoking cloture and voted against the final Bill.

In conclusion, eRiposte finds Dodd to be the measuring stick for all other Democratic candidates when it comes to bankruptcy reform:

In this post, I compared the voting records of key Democratic Presidential candidates on the topic of the Bankruptcy Bill. I reviewed the final vote on the Bankruptcy Bill of 2000, and the final vote and amendments/motions associated with the 2001 and 2005 Bankruptcy bills. The main findings are as follows:

1. Senator Chris Dodd has the best, and a near-perfect, voting record on Bankruptcy legislation. He has been consistently and strongly progressive on the topic of Bankruptcy “reform” at least since 2000. [Emphasis in the original in all quoted passages]

Dodd's record is clear and it's also worth noting that earlier this month he committed to reversing the worst parts of the bankruptcy bill. He will be introducing a more comprehensive plan in the coming weeks.

Water-boarding is term that describes strapping an individual to a board, with a towel pulled tightly across his face, and pouring water on him or her to cut off air and simulate drowning.  

When asked directly last week whether he thought waterboarding is constitutional, Attorney General nominee Michael Mukasey was evasive.  As noted by NPR, Mukasey “danced around the issue of whether waterboarding actually is torture and stopped short of saying that it is.” “If it amounts to torture,” Mukasey said carefully, “then it is not constitutional.”

As stated by Bill Richardson,

Waterboarding is torture, and anyone who is unwilling to identify it as such is not qualified to be the chief legal officer of the United States of America. If I were in the U.S. Senate, I would vote against Mukasey unless he denounces such specific forms of torture.

What about the Democrats in the U.S. Senate and other Democratic Presidential candidates?  Will they oppose Mukasey unless he denounces the use of torture by our government?

In Tuesday's FISA live chat at Fire Dog Lake, Senator Dodd talked about how caring about the Constitution is in his DNA:

I feel so strongly about this. It’s part of my DNA, in a sense. Some of you may know, that I grew up in a household where my father was a prosecutor at the Nuremberg trials, here. And, Robert Jackson, the great prosecutor, the great Supreme Court Justice, made the case as others did. That we were going to stand up for the rule of law, even with some of the greatest violators of human rights in recorded history. That we were going to provide a trial for them, that which they never gave to their victims. So I heard all about the rule of law growing up, and how important it is. I didn’t discover this a week ago, or year a go or two years ago. It’s something I believed in very strongly when I served on the House Judiciary Committee…So my history on these matters go back a long way, here. They didn’t come up recently, and I’m urging people to stand up.

If caring about the rule of law is in Senator Dodd's DNA, it's critically important to remember as citizens that the Constitution is our nation's DNA. And this administration's actions against our founding document risks fundamentally altering who we are as a nation.

We have seen strikes made against the Eighth Amendment, which bans cruel and unusual punishment; the Fourth Amendment, which mandates searches be conducted with warrant; and the Fifth Amendment, which demands due process for all persons.

Habeas corpus. Warrantless wiretaps. Torture. Extraordinary rendition. Secret Prisons. The Military Commissions Act.

Now we see the pernicious idea of retroactive immunity or amnesty for telecom companies who helped the Bush administration spy illegally on innocent Americans without warrant. If this dangerous move becomes law, the courts will never be able to discover what the Bush administration asked these companies and on what grounds. We will never learn what was perpetrated against the American people by its own government, in contravention to the laws of our land.

The efforts we have seen to change the DNA of America do not stop with the Bill of Rights, but tragically have extended into dangerous revisionism when it comes to the purview of the legislature and the executive. Article I and Article II of the Constitution.

The system of checks and balances between the three branches of government is being cast out of balance. The Vice President has gone so far as to suggest he's a previously undiscovered fourth branch of government.

Our Constitution — and our nation — may represent a great experiment in the power for representative democracy to make the world a better place. But the erosions and invasions of our Constitution and Bill of Rights — the DNA of our country —  under President Bush threaten to turn America into a modern island of Doctor Moreau. What we get will not be what our Founders intended.

And so while Senator Dodd ties the roots of his passion for the Constitution and rule of law to the household he was raised in and the hard work of his father, we can all find our passion in a need to defend the document that most fundamentally defines who we are as a nation. And with our passion, we can move to act — today — by calling the Senate Judiciary Committee and ask them to oppose retroactive immunity for telecom companies in the latest FISA legislation.

Update:

Here's Sen. Dodd's speech from the floor of the Senate today on the Constitution, FISA, and rule of law:

Cross posted at the DoddBlog.

DailyKos founder Markos Moulitsas is interviewed by Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo on his thoughts on the presidential race. Markos said this of Dodd's principled leadership:

Obama's played it safe. Everyone else is playing it safe. Hillary Clinton has definitely played it safe. So finally, you know, people like me are looking for somebody to be inspired who gives us the kind of rhetoric and policy proposals that actually seem to move the Democratic Party forward. And Chris Dodd on bankruptcy reform, on the war in Iraq, on civil liberties and I mean this is a guy who is essentially running on a platform of restoring the Bill of Rights. How much more inspiring can you get than that? Especially in this climate, with this administration, that has made absolutely clear that their number one mission in life is to eviscerate the Bill of Rights. So you have a candidate that has latched onto a very timely issue, one that is very relevant and actually is of great importance right now — and that's Chris Dodd.

I wish he was a really viable candidate, I wish he was in the top tier, then I could get really excited about him. As it is, I wish the top tier candidates would speak in the way that Chris Dodd does.

We can make Chris Dodd into a top-tier candidate by getting involved and rewarding his leadership. Tell your friends. Make a donation. Volunteer for the campaign. Start a personal fundraising drive. Write to your local paper.

You can make the Dodd campaign a success by getting on board in support of a candidate who is leading on the most pressing issues facing our country today. Your voice in support of Senator Dodd's campaign is what is needed to propel Dodd into the “top tier.” Wishing he polled higher than he does is well and good, but it's action that will carry Dodd to the nomination. If Democratic activists, online and off, sit on their hands while unsatisfied with what the “top tier” provides them, then we won't realize the promise of Dodd's inspiring campaign. We need your help and now is the time for you to join the Dodd Squad.

“We” being everyone who wants to derail the Hillary inevitability train.

Clinton supporters are crowing about the latest Des Moines Register poll showing her leading likely Democratic voters in Iowa with 29 percent to 23 percent for Edwards, 22 percent for Obama, 8 percent for Richardson and 5 percent for Biden.

Here is the link for the poll:

http://www.desmoines…

Hillary has to be happy not just about her overall lead, but also her lead among voters over 65 and her big lead among women.

It's not good news for the other candidates, but it would be a mistake to say Hillary is going to cruise in Iowa. I think she is going to lose delegates when people go to their second choices on caucus night.

Edwards has dropped since May, but he hasn't been up on the air, while all of the other major candidates have blanketed the airwaves for two months or more. Despite that, he still leads among men and middle-aged Iowa voters. He is building a strong organization to identify and turn out supporters. I totally disagree with those who say he has no room to grow his support in Iowa.

Obama is holding steady. If he were my first choice, I'd be worried about the fact that he trails badly among older voters and does best among groups that are relatively unlikely to caucus (under 45 or independent). Clearly Obama needs to turn out record numbers of independents and first-time caucus-goers if he is going to win Iowa. He will have plenty of boots on the ground, though, so it is too early to count him out. 

Richardson was at 8 percent in this poll, which is not a statistically significant change from the 10 percent he had in May. Clearly, though, he is stuck around the 10 percent mark in IA and NH and is not continuing to gain momentum. He needs to do something to change the dynamic of the race if he wants to break into the top tier in Iowa. He may be tempted to play it safe and try for a cabinet appointment in the event that Hillary wins, though.

All of the candidates need to try to reduce or eliminate Hillary's leads with women and older voters. Individual supporters and precinct captains need to make those voter contacts in their neighborhoods and make the case for alternatives to Hillary. 

What do the rest of you think about the poll? 

Last night's debate brought the issue of residual forces in Iraq to the front and center Democratic presidential campaign. The candidates presented their differing views on whether or not they would have all us troops out of Iraq by the end of their first term in office — 2013 — six years from now.

Sadly, there was little difference between the “top tier” candidates, as Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards all said they will not have ended our involvement in Iraq by 2013.

Six years from now.

Blogger Jeffrey Feldman writes:

The top-tier candidates all agreed last night that the Iraq war is only half over–that if elected President, each will continue the U.S. occupation and U.S. combat operations inside Iraq until at 2013.   This means that the official Democratic position is now that the Iraq war will be a ten-year war.

Now, I strongly disagree with Feldman that waiting until 2013 is the “official Democratic position.” It is only the consensus position held by the three front-running candidates.

It is not Chris Dodd's official position. Nor is it the position of millions of Democrats and anti-war activists who are fighting to end the war today.

Dodd made his stance crystal clear in this exchange with moderator Tim Russert:

Tim Russert: I want to put you on the record. Will you pledge as Commander in Chief that you have all troops out of Iraq by January of 2013?

Chris Dodd: I will get that done.

Tim Russert: You'll get it done?

Chris Dodd: Yes, I will, sir.

That's where Dodd is. And yet, the consensus among the Clinton-Obama-Edwards trio, the three largest recipients of time in last night's Democratic debate, was that they would not end the war in Iraq by 2013.

Last night's debate made it abundantly clear that while there exists a consensus among the “top tier” of Democratic presidential that they won't be committed to end the war by 2013, there is an alternative: Chris Dodd. Dodd is the only candidate who's fighting to pass legislation to cut off funding for the war now while committing to get our troops out of Iraq in his first term in office if he can't succeed legislatively before then.

If you want to end the war in Iraq and if you have been a supporter of Barack Obama, John Edwards, or Hillary Clinton, I'd like to take this opportunity to invite you to join the Dodd Squad. You'll have a candidate who stands with you in your desire about ending the war and you will never, ever have to apologize for him pledging to keep US troops in Iraq for six more years.

I didn't have a chance to watch the forum.

What did you think?

Iowa Independent's liveblog is here:

http://www.iowaindep…

You can also find links to video from the forum at that site.

Noneed4thneed thought it was a great night for Biden and Edwards:

http://commoniowan.b…

Reaction from MyDD readers is here:

http://www.mydd.com/…

I still think it was insane for Obama to skip this one, given that up to two-thirds of caucus-goers may be over 50.

UPDATE: I finally got around to watching the debate. I thought all five candidates did well. As an Edwards supporter, I was very happy with his performance and his ability to make connections: for instance, between strong unions and pensions, between the solvency of Social Security and the need to stop taxing wealth at a much lower rate than work is taxed.

But I imagine that supporters of the other candidates also found much to like in their performances.

The format was also much better than the previous debates (it helped having only five people on stage). Judy Woodruff did a good job of asking direct questions and following up when warranted. 

More like this debate, please! 

This afternoon Senator Pat Leahy and Senator Chris Dodd introduced the Leahy-Specter-Dodd Amendment to the Defense Authorization bill. The amendment will restore habeas corpus and help us regain our moral standing in the world.

Sign up to be a citizen co-sponsor at http://restore-habeas.org.

Also, follow Senator Dodd's call to action above and call up your Senators and ask them to co-sponsor the Leahy-Specter-Dodd Amendment.

The fight will be hard and the vote, which will come later this week, is likely to be very close. But upholding the rule of law demands action and that's what Senators Dodd and Leahy are calling for.

Big news out of Cedar Falls today. Iowa State Senate Pro Tempore Jeff Danielson has endorsed Chris Dodd for President. Danielson is the first member of the Iowa Senate leadership to endorse a presidential candidate.  In addition to the endorsement, he will serve as a Co-Chair of Dodd’s Iowa Steering Committee, and a member of Dodd’s National Steering Committee.

Danielson is a Navy veteran and a fire fighter in Cedar Falls.

“When it comes to protecting this country and strengthening our communities, proven leadership and experience matter,” said Danielson.  “I am supporting Chris Dodd, because he is the candidate I trust to keep America safe and keep our middle class families strong.  Time and time again, Chris Dodd has shown not only that he has thoughtful, bold ideas, but that he has the ability to pull people together to get them done.
 
“With the stakes so high for our country in this election, Chris Dodd is the proven leader we need in the White House and the proven winner we need as our Democratic nominee.  I am proud to be endorsing Chris Dodd, and I’m ready to go to work across this state on behalf of his campaign.”

Iowa blogger Lynda Waddington has more on the Danielson endorsement and a slew of links to other positive events and coverage for Senator Dodd of late.

Later tonight President Bush will address the nation on the subject of Iraq. It will be the eighth time he's done so since the Iraq war started in 2003.

Senator Dodd issued the following statement on Bush's anticipated announcement that the 30,000+ troops deployed to Iraq during the “surge” will be brought home early next summer (as has always been the plan).

“Moving us in 10 months to where we were 10 months ago is not progress. It is the very definition of status quo.

“Not only is the President not offering us anything new; he's insulting our intelligence.

“Despite the fact that his top General is unable to say that the war is making us safer, all the President offers today is quite literally more of the same. More loss of life, more strain on our military readiness, and more degradation of our national security and our standing in the world. It is time for Congress to say 'no more.'

“What was clear to me before, and what should be abundantly clear to my colleagues after today, is that this President is not going to change course unless we force him to. There is only one way to do that – we must set a clear, hard and fast deadline for redeployment and, in order to enforce it, that deadline must be tied to funding.”

Last week BarbinMD asked this on DailyKos:

Senator Dodd will hold a press conference to announce his comprehensive Cuba policy today in Miami, FL at 11 AM Eastern. Dodd, who has led the fight to reform our approach to Cuba to better serve the cause of democracy and American interests, will call for bold, sweeping changes to America's Cuba policy.

I will update this diary with links to the full plan, but for now check out the preview offered by the Miami Herald today:

In a statement given Friday to The Miami Herald, Dodd favors opening a U.S. embassy in Havana, allowing Americans to do business there, and nixing TV Martí, the U.S.-funded broadcast routinely blocked by Cuba.

''I believe the time has come to say publicly what many Americans believe — our Cuba policy has neither served America's interests nor brought democracy to Cuba,'' reads the speech Dodd plans to give in Miami today. “It has only served to strengthen the current regime. It has been an abject failure.''

Chris Dodd has the boldness to open new doors in our relationship with Cuba. This plan is yet another example of Dodd leading with conviction, experience, and clarity of vision.

UPDATE:

The video of the press conference is embedded above. Dodd was very strong, fluidly answering questions on his Cuba policy in both English and Spanish.

The full Dodd Cuba policy is now online. Read it here.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzaels' resigned earlier. Senator Dodd called for Gonzales' resignation in May, while simultaneously offering a resolution in the Senate urging President Bush to replace Gonzales, and today issued a strong statement on the personnel move.

Hopefully now that Mr. Gonzales no longer occupies a seat in the Bush administration, he'll be more forthcoming about details surrounding the US Attorneys scandal, warrantless surveillance programs, and a host of other Congressional investigations that he has used his office to stymy. As Steve Benen writes, “His resignation does not end the inquiry into the DoJ’s many scandals. Laws may have been broken and lawmakers still want answers. Gonzales’ decision to exit stage right doesn’t change that.”

President Bush must nominate an individual with a record that lacks Mr. Gonzales' penchant for toeing the administration line ahead of his Constitutional duties to uphold the law. That individual must be given a full and comprehensive hearing before the Senate to determine their fitness for the role of Attorney General of the United States. A recess appointment is not an acceptable option. For now it seems that the President is asking US Solicitor Paul Clement to serve as acting Attorney General until a replacement is confirmed on a permanent basis. Looking forward, someone coming from outside the Bush administration is going to be the best course for finding an acceptable replacement with adequate credentials is an independent-minded, accomplished lawyer.

Gonzales' resignation offers the country another opportunity to inspect what has occurred during the Bush administration and what needs to be done to restore the rule of law in America. Senator Dodd has laid down a clear marker on where he stands and what he is looking for in the next Attorney General. Restoring the Constitution and upholding the law, while pushing for reforms within the Department of Justice, will require other senators join Senator Dodd in his call for a “truly independent” replacement. Now is the time for a real, meaningful change following the vision for reform provided by the Senator who's been called “D-Constitution” — Chris Dodd.

Yesterday's Washington Post reports that President George W. Bush considers himself a “dissident”:

“You're not the only dissident,” Bush told Saad Eddin Ibrahim, a leader in the resistance to Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. “I too am a dissident in Washington. Bureaucracy in the United States does not help change. It seems that Mubarak succeeded in brainwashing them.”

Quite frankly, this is one of the most astonishing things I've ever heard Bush say, and he's said some truly confounding things during his tenure in the White House.

The last century has seen a great many dissidents fighting for democracy and freedom. Nelson Mandela in South Africa. Mahatma Ghandi in India. The students of Tiananmen Square. Vaclav Havel in Czechoslovakia. Otpor in Serbia.

Each one of these people and groups put their lives on the line for political change when facing oppressive, unjust governments. They were beat, shot at, killed, and imprisoned by their own countrymen and governments. Yet they still fought for change; some won, some continue to fight.

Nothing, I repeat, nothing, in the opposition President Bush has had to face to accomplish his agenda stands in the same category as what these heroic dissidents faced. The only thing President Bush has in common with a political dissident is that both words end with “dent.”

Bush has faced opposition because he's presented policies that are out of touch with the desires of the American people and the legislators that represent them. He's divided the country through the war in Iraq and the dangerous roll-back of constitutional rights.

Chris Dodd would never be confused for a dissident as President. He has the experience of bringing people of both parties together to get legislation passed. He did it with the Family and Medical Leave Act, the Genocide Conventions, helped bring peace to Latin America, the first child care legislation and countless other pieces of critically important legislation. A Dodd administration will bring the leaders of both parties together in January 2009, make its priorities clear, and work with people to get the job done. If obstacles ever come up, you can count on Chris Dodd to not become a martyr who casts himself in the vein as people he has no business comparing himself to. That's because Dodd is an honest, experienced leader who has a global understanding of politics and the meaning of words. Two things that I believe our country sorely needs.

Talk Clock, timing the DNC Debate, courtesy of the Chris Dodd campaign:

Earlier this afternoon Senator Chris Dodd rolled-out his full education plan at Des Moines Area Community College. You can watch the speech and Q&A below:

 Also, you can read the full Dodd education plan on www.ChrisDodd.com.

MyDD has started a new series where supporters of the different Democratic presidential candidates are given limited front-page blogging privileges to talk about their candidate. Big Tent Democrat of TalkLeft (aka Armando of DailyKos) was tapped to post on MyDD's front page about Senator Dodd on every Thursday.

BTD's first post is now live. It's titled, “How Chris Dodd Won My Support: By Leading On the Issues Now“. He leads off with a story that's actually relatively similar to my own — of not really looking for a candidate to support, but being won over by Dodd's bold leadership on issues right now.

I never expected to be supporting any of our fine candidates for President at this point, much less Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT). I was not shopping for candidates. Indeed, I insisted (insist?) that the Netroots has spent 2007 too focused on the 2008 horserace instead of being focused on the pressing issues of today, especially the Iraq issue.

But that actually explains how Chris Dodd won my support. Chris Dodd is leading on the issues of today as well as discussing his vision for the issues of tomorrow. Take Iraq for instance. While Dodd thoroughly explains his views on what he will do about Iraq as President, he has spent just as much time explaining and stressing the critical importance of Democrats doing all they can now to end the Iraq Debacle. This is not an issue that can wait 18 months. Thus Dodd argues that we must:

End the War in Iraq Decisively. Chris Dodd understands that ending the war in Iraq makes America safer. He strongly supports the Feingold-Reid proposal – the only responsible measure in Congress that sets a timetable to end the war in Iraq by March 31, 2008 – and he has urged all the candidates in the presidential race to join him. It is time to stand up to the President's misguided Iraq policy.

(Emphasis supplied.) More than anything else, this position won my support. Instead of introducing a “Dodd plan” for getting us out of Iraq, to buttress a stump speech, Chris Dodd put the issue first, he put the nation first, and he argued for what Democrats (and any Republicans with wisdom and courage) should be doing NOW, not in January 2009, to end the Iraq Debacle. With this one act, Chris Dodd demonstrated the type of leadership, political courage, selflessness and wisdom that we need from our future President.

Earlier this morning Senator Chris Dodd unveiled his K-12 Education Policy in a speech to the New Hampshire NEA in Bartlett, NH. The Dodd plan will:

• Provide for universal preschool
• Reform No Child Left Behind
• Ensure that there are quality, experienced teachers in every school
• Put in place world-class, but flexible, academic standards
• Create incentives to extend school learning opportunities by lengthening the school day and spend more time on academics
• Modernize schools and reduce class sizes
• Make sure that every 9th grade student in America has a plan to graduate and is on track for college
• Increase opportunities for virtual learning and online curriculae

Those are the broad strokes, but you can learn more about the details of the Dodd education plan on ChrisDodd.com.

Here's the speech:

Today Senator Dodd unveiled his plan for universal, affordable health care coverage at a kitchen table conversation in Marion, Iowa.  

“The failed leadership and misplaced priorities of the last six years have put the health of our middle class at risk,” said Dodd. “In order to address the health of America's middle class, we have to address soaring health care costs. That is why I am proposing a health care plan that provides for affordable, universal coverage.”

“By establishing the Universal HealthMart, individuals would be guaranteed affordable health care coverage,” said Dodd. “America deserves a health care system that provides universal, affordable coverage through universal responsibility shared by employers, individuals, insurance companies and the government.”

The Dodd Plan will:

* Ensures all Americans will have quality, affordable health coverage during Chris Dodd's first term.

* The Dodd plan will create a health insurance marketplace called Universal HealthMart that is based on, and parallel to, the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan (FEHBP).

* Individuals and businesses will contribute to Universal HealthMart based on their ability to pay.

* Premiums will be affordable based on leveraged negotiating power, spreading risk, reduced administrative costs, and incentives for technology and preventive care.

* Coverage will be portable — insurance purchased in Universal HealthMart will follow individuals.

You can read the full Dod health care plan here.

We've also created a page that compares the Dodd plan to that of other Democratic presidential candidates. You can see how the Dodd plan stacks up to the Obama, Edwards, Richardson, and Clinton plans here.

As promised, here are Senator Dodd's answers to the top rated YouTube user submitted questions. Senator Dodd answered these four questions because they were the favorites listed by Community Counts, a site that's allowed visitors to vote on which questions the Presidential candidates should be asked.

Without further ado, Dodd's answers to the top four YouTube user-submitted questions:

Re: Impeachment of GW Bush;Necessary to thwart future abuses?

Re: What about the *non* religious voters?

Yesterday, the Dodd campaign responded to a request by Fox News' personality Bill O'Reilly to comment on a selection of cherry picked and non-representative comments from the popular liberal blog DailyKos. In a diary on Kos, Tim Tagaris wrote, “Senator Dodd is a proud member of the Daily Kos community, most notably engaging this community in a live video give-and-take prior to the New Hampshire debate.  He is also an enthusiastic confirmed participant for Yearly Kos.”

O'Reilly attempted to smear DailyKos by contending that the most extreme statements found amidst millions of comments (attributed to no specific people) were representative of the whole community. As Hari Sevugan, Dodd campaign Communications Director, said yesterday, “to selectively choose the handful of the most extreme comments from the millions of voices in the conversation and fashion that as representative of a whole community is patently unfair.”

Today, I'd like to offer up some representative comments from the DailyKos community, all of which appear on the diary Tagaris posted yesterday afternoon. I'll even tell you who wrote each comment.

So I inadvertently started a flamewar on Daily Kos and MyDD today by posting a diary about the Clinton campaign being missing in action from July 4 parades in the Des Moines suburbs. The Clintonistas were outraged that (to their mind) my headline implied that the Clinton campaign did not take part in any parades, when we all know that Bill and Hillary marched in the Clear Lake parade.

You can find the DKos version of the flamewar here here or the MyDD version here (the angry Clinton mob was a little less active at MyDD).

My point was that there was no Clinton campaign presence at the Windsor Heights parade I attended, and according to others I talked to, Clinton's campaign didn't have a vehicle in the Urbandale or West Des Moines parades either.

That surprised me, because Obama, Edwards and Richardson were well represented with campaign workers and/or volunteers. (The organizer of the Windsor Heights parade told me later that Biden's campaign was also in the parade, but I didn't notice them.) 

The Edwards people were able to get quite a few supporter cards signed during these parades. We were watching for people who waved or cheered as the Edwards truck rolled by, and three or four people ran up to those spectators and asked them if they would sign up as Edwards supporters. I didn't catch the number for the WDM parade, but I think they got about 65 cards signed during the Urbandale parade and another 15 to 20 in Windsor Heights.

The team also handed out a lot of Edwards stickers in WDM and Urbandale, but had run out early in the Windsor Heights parade.

Obama and Richardson people were handing out tons of stickers in Windsor Heights. My husband, who was with the kids on the side, was pretty sure he saw an Obama staffer with a clipboard as well, who was probably getting supporter cards signed. He wasn't sure whether anyone with the Richardson group was handing out cards. But yesterday evening at the big Windsor Heights celebration in Colby Park, I saw lots of people still sporting their Obama and Richardson stickers.

The point of my diary was that this was a missed opportunity for the Clinton campaign. Thousands of people watch these parades. I've got to believe there were Clinton supporters and leaners who would have signed up if there had been staffers out there spotting them and asking them. I know staff was probably preoccupied with the Clintons' Iowa tour, but the fact that Obama was in Iowa didn't prevent his campaign from having a strong presence in all of the parades.

A woman I know well in my neighborhood is a Clinton leaner (she says she needs more info about the other candidates before making up her mind). She's a general election voter who rarely votes in primaries. Despite many contacts from me last cycle, she and her husband did not attend our precinct caucus. So she is unlikely to turn up on a list of Ds to target in my precinct. I saw her along the parade route with her kids. If there had been a Clinton presence, I bet she would have taken a sticker or possibly signed up. They could have then targeted her closer to caucus time for GOTV efforts. But how will they find her now?

With Teresa Vilmain running the show and the Vilsacks on board, and plenty of money, I am surprised that the Clinton campaign didn't make sure they had a strong presence in all of the Des Moines-area parades.

What do you think, and which campaigns did you see in your towns? 

Incidentally, the only Republican campaign in the Windsor Heights parade was Brownback's; they were also in Urbandale and West Des Moines. I assume that some of the other Republican candidates were in those larger suburban parades. 

The video above was shot at a meeting at the Canteen Lunch in the Alley, a diner whose specialty is a “loose meat” sandwich and a scrumptious assortment of pies, in Ottumwa, Iowa. Senator Dodd talked with people there for about an hour, answering questions on military spending, health care, the war in Iraq, and transparency in government. In the clip above he talks about President Bush’s commutation of Scooter Libby and how this administration’s actions have damaged the rule of law. You can watch the whole talk in the Canteen Lunch on Ustream.tv.

Allow me to geek out for a moment…

The live feed from Ottumwa was broadcast on a wee little mobile broadband card. I was only getting one bar of service in the Canteen, in part because though the restaurant has been around since 1936 and is a historic landmark, a number of years back a parking garage was constructed around (and above) it and now it’s effectively a couple stories underground. Nonetheless, we were able to stream live and allow people from all over the country to see a conversation between Senator Dodd and Iowa caucus goers over lunch. We were able to leverage technologies to make an offline campaign stop become an online event for anyone to watch (first live, now recorded).

What’s even more cool is that I’ve now cut and uploaded the video above to YouTube while riding in the River to River Tour bus from Ottumwa towards Des Moines. And now I’m about to hit publish on a blog post telling you all about it.

This is one of those moments where what we’re able to do with new media technologies to make this presidential campaign fully transparent catches up with me and I just have to say: Wow.

See it all on D-TV

Senator Chris Dodd:

“By commuting Scooter Libby's sentence, the President continues to abdicate responsibility for the actions of his Administration. The only ones paying the price for this Administration's actions are the American people.”

In my travels with Senator Dodd I've heard him talk about his time in the Peace Corps a lot. Around kitchen tables and in back yards of New Hampshire and Iowa, Senator Dodd tells people why he joined the Peace Corps: because an American President asked.

John F. Kennedy reached out to a generation of Americans and a generation answered his call. They joined the Peace Corps. They joined VISTA, the Department of Justice, worked for civil rights, and served in the military. They were united in purpose of making America a better place and raising our standing in the world to reflect the dignity that our nation held.

Despite hearing Senator Dodd talk about the source of his impetus for entry into the Peace Corps many times, the story has always sounded foreign to me. As a twenty-five year old Gen Yer (or am I a “Millennial”?) I can say with certainty that the same culture that JFK set when he famously uttered the words “Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country” does not currently exist in American political sentiment, at least not in the scale as forty-six years ago. The idea of Americans being asked by our President to serve our country — not just shop —  by standing up and contributing time and energy to making this country and our world a better place simply is absent from the political culture that I have grown up in.

I spent the last two days at Take Back America 2007, a conference of Democratic and progressive political organizers and activists. While spending time on Bloggers' Boulevard I talked to a number of netroots dignitaries about what they liked about Senator Dodd and how his leadership on key issues is distinguishing him from the field. Below are the response of Bob Geiger,&nbsp; Matt Stoller, Phillip Anderson (The Albany Project), Siun (firedoglake), and Lane Hudson (Huffington Post). Enjoy!

Bob Geiger on resoring the Constitution and ending the Iraq War.

Continue Reading...

Sorry for the short notice–this just arrived today in my in-box. Go here at 4 pm CDT today (Wednesday) to participate:

    http://ChrisDodd.com…
  

UPDATE: I got a robocall telling me that Senator Dodd will be speaking at the Des Moines Public Library downtown on Tuesday, June 26, at noon. The main topic will be his national service plan, although I imagine he'll take questions on other topics too.

Didn't see any other public events listed on the Dodd campaign website, but if you're interested, check again in a few days. I assume he'll hold more than one event on this Iowa trip. 

Check out Matt Browner-Hamlin's diary to the right, where you can watch the new ads Chris Dodd is airing in Iowa and NH.

They are basically biographical pieces. I especially liked the second one. I was not aware of Dodd's role in passing the Family and Medical Leave act. Although that act doesn't go far enough for many families, it was still an enormous step forward, and I know tons of young parents who appreciate it.

One of the largest reasons I joined the Dodd campaign and why I think Chris Dodd is the best candidate for the presidency is his leadership on restoring the Constitution and protecting the right of habeas corpus for all Americans. He fundamentally understands that our moral authority is tied into our ability to lead and our security.

Habeas corpus is an unfortunately isn't an issue that's talked about a lot in American politics. It is a right enshrined in the US Constitution to ensure that when the government detains a person, that person must be brought before a court and be tried or released. Habeas corpus is a hallmark of what protects our republic from the creep of tyranny. The right of habeas corpus was gutted by the Military Commissions Act of 2006, a law whose bland name belies its pernicious character.  A New York Times editorial in September, 2006 documented the extent of the MCA's reach beyond habeas and into our relationship with the Geneva Convention, how we treat enemy combatants, how our courts weigh secret and coerced evidence, how the MCA limits review by our independent judiciary, and a definition of torture that is so narrow as to exclude rape from being included.

At some point, hopefully quite soon, the Iraq War will be over. Patriotic, courageous leaders will bind up our nation's wounds and we, as a nation, will move on as best we can. Hopefully we will be able to remember the mistakes that surrounded the Bush administration's policies before and during the Iraq War. But we will remain Americans and we will work together to restore our standing in the world.

But habeas corpus and the rights enshrined in our Constitution that depend on it to have meaning are a part of our national DNA. And unless it is restored soon, we risk fundamentally altering who we are as a people and what we stand for in the world.

Senator Dodd has accepted an invitation from Univision Communications to participate in the first-ever Spanish language Presidential debate. It is scheduled to take place in Miami, FL on September 9th.

Here's Senator Dodd's statement on the debate:

We have an historic opportunity and a central obligation to address the ever-growing Latino community this election. The next President needs to be someone who can speak to this important segment of our population, and those within our same Hemisphere, on issues from immigration to education to foreign affairs. This debate represents an excellent opportunity to do so.

Senator Dodd, who is fluent in Spanish, served in the Peace Corps in the Dominican Republic.

Senator Dodd traveled back and forth across America today to speak, first, at the New Hampshire Democratic Party's Mid-Term Convention, followed later yesterday evening by a rousing speech at the Iowa Democratic Party's Hall of Fame dinner.

Here's Senator Dodd's speech in Concord, New Hampshire:

And here's Senator Dodd's speech in Cedar Rapids, Iowa:

Responding to my post on the Obama health care proposal, Obama supporter RF wrote this:

I think we definitely need to know what ideas the candidates have on the major issues, have an idea where each candidate would like to take us.  But political reality is that the president will need to work with Congress on all legislation.  No president will ever get exactly what s/he wants in any piece of legislation.  It’s like obsessing about grammar and style in a rough first draft or an outline of an article, knowing that it will be completely rewritten.

Obviously any president will need to work with Congress. But it is very important to know what the president's starting point for negotiations will be.

I am a lousy negotiator, because I try to figure out what a fair compromise is, and that's my first offer. I have made that mistake several times in my life.

Look at Bush's record of legislative success. He puts in every bad idea on the Republican wish list, and he ends up getting almost everything he asks for. He doesn't say, Congress would never pass that extreme an energy bill. He just keeps asking for everything, even highly controversial things like drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge. In the end, ANWR was excluded from the bill, but Bush got all the other bad stuff he wanted.

Similar story on taxes. Bush has asked for all manner of ridiculous, unaffordable tax cuts. He kept asking, even if Congress didn't immediately pass what he asked for. At this point, the only thing he couldn't get through was the permanent repeal of the estate tax. But he aimed high and got almost everything else he wanted.

Hillary Clinton's starting point on health care will be a few nibbles here and there, trying to get health insurance for some portion of the enormous uninsured population. Even if Congress gave her everything she asked for (which wouldn't happen), we would be far from universal access to health care.

Barack Obama's plan seems much better than Hillary's, and more detailed, but from what I have read, it is also less than a universal plan, and it lacks some of the elements I like in Edwards' plan.

I am under no illusion that Congress would rubber-stamp what Edwards asks for, but I feel quite confident that he will drive a hard bargain and get us the best possible deal for health care. I feel that Clinton and Obama will not push Congress as hard on this issue. 

On energy policy, so far Dodd, Richardson and Edwards have offered the most ambitious proposals to combat global warming. No doubt these would not get through Congress intact, but it is very important to aim high (e.g. policies that would achieve an 80 percent reduction in carbon emissions by 2050).

So bring on the details, I say, and tell us what your legislative priorities would be. 

I wanted to pull out and highlight this clip from Senator Dodd speaking in Portsmouth, NH. In this segment, he talks about last week's Iraq supplemental vote and the need for leadership that will do what is right.

My transcription:

People have been very generous throughout today and yesterday in expressing their gratitude for being one of fourteen votes that was cast on Thursday on this issue, saying it was courageous for you to do what you did. To be candid, there was nothing courageous about it. To me, that was the right thing to do — what's courageous about doing what's right?

What's right is redeploying our troops out of Iraq and getting out of that civil war. That's what we ought to be doing here.

I'm determined to stick with this. We'll be back at this issue very quickly. We have a defense authorization bill, a defense appropriations bill, this supplemental will run out around the middle of September, first of October, so we'll be back at this issue very quickly.

And I'd be less than honest if I didn't tell you I was disappointed that more people either didn't make a decision early enough or be clear enough about it or that not enough people ultimately did what I think was the only right thing to do here.

And it's not only about how wrong this is as a policy, but I frame it in the context of our national security. No one is going to be elected president of the United States in 2008 if they don't make the country feel conscious about the security of our country. And what the policy in Iraq is doing, among other things, is making us far less secure. We're far more vulnerable, we're far more isolated, we're far less secure today as a result of this policy. And every hour that the policy goes on we're in greater and greater and greater danger. So this is about the national security of our nation in my view — and the wrong decision to get us involved and sustain a policy that is isolating us and reducing our moral leadership in the world.

So I'm going to stick with this – I want you to know that. I've got a bad habit about being dogged about things that I care about. On this one, I'm not moving. I want a policy that's going to end up some time this summer or this fall that says we're going to time-certain, we're going to be moving our military out of that civil conflict.

And then we're going to start using a robust diplomacy and politics and economics, engage and talk to the Iranians, deal with the Syrians, start doing what a great nation ought to be doing. And that is acting like a nation that understands how important diplomacy and politics can be to advance good interests and good causes.

I think that's what America wants. It's the kind of leadership we ought to have in the 21st century. And as your president, I'll do it – you have my word on that.

You can view the entirety of Senator Dodd's talk in Portsmouth here.

Senator Dodd speaks about honoring the troops on Memorial Day and all other days.

My Transcription:

But before starting that, this is Memorial Day weekend and I have some very strong views on Iraq, as Mark very graciously referred to. But one thing that I think all of us need to say on a day like this – and we ought to do it every day – is these young men and women who are serving our country, regardless of our views on Iraq, these are remarkable young people doing a very, very difficult job. How about a little round of applause for the kids serving all over, they do a great job.

Here is Senator Dodd's statement on the future of the Iraq debate. It comes in response to last night's passage of an Iraq supplemental bill that did not include a timetable for responsibly redeploying our troops from Iraq.

Chris Dodd: “I'm not going to stop and I want you to know that.”

I proudly work for Senator Chris Dodd's presidential campaign.
–Matt Browner-Hamlin

Ed. Note: Cross-posted Political Forecast.

In a day of big news on the 2008 trail (new Dodd ad, memo about Clinton campaign pondering skipping Iowa, Edwards giving a big foreign policy speech, etc), here is something worth recognizing as a standout point: Sen. Christopher Dodd is going to vote against the new Iraq supplemental funding bill, the one without a timeline for withdrawal. The video of his reasoning is below:

And here is the full release from the campaign is below:

“This war has gone on longer than World War II and there is no end in sight. Yet we are less secure and more isolated than before. We have lost 3,400 patriotic Americans and shattered our standing in the world. We are spending $2 billion a week – $8 billion a month – and are now caught in the middle of a civil war. Still, this President wants more of the same and this bill would give him his wish.

I cannot and will not simply give this President another blank check.

Half-measures and equivocations are not going to change our course in Iraq. If we are serious about ending the war, Congress must stand up to this President’s failed policy now – with clarity and conviction.

As the debate on the war continues, I will continue to fight for a firm deadline that is tied to funding which will allow for a responsible redeployment of U.S. combat troops in Iraq – because that’s the only way to responsibly bring this war to a conclusion.

I hope my colleagues would do the same.”

This comes after a new ad was released this morning by his campaign, where he called out Senators Clinton and Obama — the presumed front-runners — for finally coming to his position and voting in favor of the Feingold-Reid-Dodd Amendment in the Senate. It was a big time move, and I think a good way to gain traction here in Iowa.

Both Clinton and Obama are strong in Iowa, behind the powerhouse that is John Edwards. Right behind those three is Bill Richardson, who has gained traction with his message calling on Congress to de-authorize the war in Iraq and his new ads. In the latest Iowa Poll, Dodd wasn’t gaining traction. With the ads and the strong movement against the war in Iraq and the calls for troop withdrawals by March of 2008, Dodd is putting himself firmly in the anti-Iraq war camp with Richardson and Edwards. While Obama has consistently been against the war, he can’t put himself in this camp because he’s not coming out strong for withdrawal, deauthorization, or any other kind of leadership position on the issue. Clinton is Clinton on Iraq (I’m glad she’s calling on the Pentagon to do more to prepare for withdrawal scenarios, but toeing the line just doesn’t mesh with me).

Sen. Dodd is a strong voice to end this war, particularly in the Senate. Sens. Clinton and Obama have started following his lead, but beyond Sen. Russ Feingold, he’s the only other one pushing strongly in the Senate for an end to this debacle. And he deserves credit for bring that debate into the Senate, as well as bringing it to the race by forcing Clinton and Obama to clearly take a stand. And now, as the closing part of the release shows, he’s making an issue of how Clinton and Obama are going to vote on the supplemental. And they should vote against it. Make this a Republican bill — make them own it. They’re the ones continuing this mess.

I’m staying neutral for a while, but if a candidate wants to keep convincing me they’re worthy of being the next President, then they need to start leading the charge to put an end to the Iraq war. It is that simple.

Today the Dodd campaign launched our second ad. “Ready to Lead” is now on the air in Iowa, New Hampshire, and on national cable stations.

Senator Chris Dodd is ready to lead. Through his leadership, we are moving the conversation from half-measures to bold solutions on our most pressing challenges: ending the Iraq War responsibly, stopping global warming and ending our dependence on Middle Eastern oil. On energy, he is proposing the boldest plan of all presidential candidates, which includes a Corporate Carbon Tax and 50 mpg fuel economy standards.

Senator Dodd is receiving wide praise for his leadership on these critical issues.

John Nichols of The Nation recently wrote:

Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd is in Des Moines today to hold in a statewide discussion on how to end the war in Iraq and strengthen America. The forum will take place on Friday at 12PM CST at Drake University. It will also be broadcast via live web video to a gathering in Iowa City, as well as having smaller kitchen-table style groups that are listening to the forum in Decatur City, Sioux City, Charles City, and Burlington. The same web video feed that Iowans in Iowa City will used to see the forum will also be transmitted live around the web via UStream.tv embedded video players. Get more information at http://chrisdodd.com/iowatownhall.

Watch below from noon to 1PM. While you wait for the broadcast to start, read Lynda Waddington's article on the Dodd campaign's use of UStream.

p>

Hey Gang,

I wanted to give you another heads up that Senator Chris Dodd is going to be in Iowa tonight and all day tomorrow. I highly recommend anyone in the Des Moines area try to attend the Senator's Statewide Discussion on How to End the War in Iraq and Strengthen America, which will be taking pace at Drake University on Friday at noon.

Check out the Senator's full schedule for Iowa: http://chrisdodd.com/events

I'll be in Iowa with Senator Dodd, so if anyone wants to meet up, please email me: mbrowner-hamlin[at]chrisdodd[dot]com

I'd be available to meet this afternoon in Dubuque and tomorrow afternoon in Des Moines.

Hope to see you there! 

Later this morning the Senate will vote to overcome a Republican filibuster that is preventing the Feingold-Reid-Dodd amendment from being considered as an addition to the Water Resources Development Act reauthorization.

To discuss the importance of the amendment and what it means for American security, as well as why Senator Dodd has taken a firm position on ending the war through Feingold-Reid-Dodd, we're holding a live web chat via UStream.tv. Chris Dodd for President Policy Director Amos Hochstein and Deputy Communications Director Hari Sevugan will answer your questions about where Dodd stands and what is happening today in the Senate.

You can ask your questions here in the comment thread. We'll do our best to respond in real time on UStream.

The web chat will start at 10 AM EST and is scheduled for thirty minutes.

Polk County Democrats passed along this e-mail from the Dodd campaign:

Please join Senator Chris Dodd as he brings his campaign for president back to Iowa to hold a statewide discussion on How to End the War in Iraq and Foreign Policy.  
 
Senator Dodd will exhibit the proven, bold leadership that he would bring to the White House as he lays out the only real and responsible way to end the war to a statewide audience.
 
There is only one way to end the war and that's for Congress to fulfill its constitutional obligation and utilize the “power of the purse.”  We can no longer give the President a blank check and expect him to bring the troops home.
 
This week in Washington , D.C. , Senator Dodd is planning to join Senator Feingold in cosponsoring an amendment on the floor of the Senate to end the war by immediately beginning to redeploy troops and bring an end to the war by March 31st, 2008.  Senator Dodd’s plan is the only plan by a Democratic candidate for president that sets a concrete deadline for total troop withdraw and redeploys the troops in a safe and responsible manner.
 
The hour-long forum will take place at Pomerantz Stage on the first floor of the Olmsted Center at Drake University at 12:00 PM this Friday, May 18th.  Groups gathered around the state will also participate in the forum by listening in via conference call or a live internet feed.  Polk Democratic County Chair Tom Henderson will moderate the event in Des Moines will ask Senator Dodd questions submitted by the audiences in Des Moines and across the state.
 
This is a unique opportunity to take part in a statewide event and directly ask a presidential candidate how he would actually end the war.

I checked the Dodd campaign's website and couldn't find any other events listed for this Iowa trip, but I will update if I learn of others he is planning to hold in the state.

Also, don't forget to check out Dodd's new tv ad running in Iowa and New Hampshire. You can find it in Matt Browner-Hamlin's diary on the right side of this page.

Hey there Bleeding Heartland,

My name is Matt Browner-Hamlin and I’ve just joined the Dodd campaign’s internet team as a traveling blogger and netroots outreach guy. I’m going to be spending a lot of time in Iowa with Senator Dodd – including a trip late this week. I’m  looking forward to traveling around the Hawkeye State and getting to know the Democratic activists who are going to shape the outcome of the caucus.  I want to be sure that members of the Bleeding Heartland community know what’s going on with Senator Dodd’s campaign and that I am available to you if you have questions. If you’re able to attend any of Senator Dodd’s events this week, I’d love to meet you in person for a bite to eat or a coffee — just give me a shout [email].

Now, on to the important stuff.

Check out Senator Dodd’s first TV commercial of the 2008 election. The ad is up in Iowa, New Hampshire, and on national cable.

Here’s the transcript of the ad:

I feel compelled to defend Chris Dodd after reading this post on Radio Iowa. (Hat tip Deeth).

Radio Iowa notes that Dodd keeps telling the same joke at every campaign stop about being the only guy in the race who gets mailings from both the AARP and diaper services. After seeing Dodd speak before a group of young Democrats, Radio Iowa had a chance to ask a question:

As Dodd was walking out of the restaurant where he had just given his 20-minute speech, followed by about 20 minutes of answering questions, I began asking about the joke.  “You always tell that joke about the AARP and diaper services,” I started.

“They hadn’t heard it,” Dodd quickly interrupted, referencing his noon-time audience.

“But I’m wondering how a guy tells a joke like that, obviously exhibiting that he has the coin for a diaper service, and how he squares that with his discussion of how the middle class is being pinched,” I continued.

“It was a joke,” Dodd said.  He laughed and walked away.

Cut the guy some slack–every candidate gives basically the same stump speech, including the same jokes, at every campaign stop.

I must have heard Chet Culver’s joke about his daughter and the letter-carriers’ endorsement half a dozen times last year. (Short version: Chet is tucking in his daughter, going through the bedtime ritual of talking about something nice that happened that day. Chet mentions that he got endorsed by the Letter-Carriers’ association. Daughter asks what that means. Chet says it means the people who deliver the mail are going to vote for him. Daughter asks, “Even the guy who delivers Nussle’s mail?”)

John Edwards has talked about being the son of a mill worker so many times that he added a joke to his stump speech about how the audience may have heard once that he is the son of a mill worker.

Now, if Radio Iowa’s complaint is that people in Iowa don’t use diaper services and can’t relate to the joke, that’s partly true, at least concerning young voters. As a mom of two kids in cloth diapers, I can confirm that there are no cloth diaper laundry services in Iowa (only some cloth diaper sellers, like this one and this one).

If Radio Iowa’s complaint is that someone who can afford a diaper service may seem out of touch with middle-class concerns, I disagree. People who remember the days of diaper services could tell you that they were affordable for middle-class families. It wasn’t a luxury service that only the wealthy used.

On the contrary, wealthier people were among the first to start using disposable diapers when they became more widely available in the 1960s. Plenty of parents from an older generation have told me that they couldn’t afford disposable diapers when their kids were babies.

But I digress. Please don’t hassle candidates for telling the same jokes over and over this year.

And if you’ve got babies or are planning to have babies in the future, be aware of the environmental and health benefits, not to mention the cost savings, of using cloth diapers. If you want to learn more, click here for the Real Diaper Association website.

Or, if you live in central Iowa, e-mail me at desmoinesdem AT yahoo.com and I will tell you when and where the monthly “cloth diaper crowd” meets.

Updated with more information about Chris Dodd’s campaign events.

Friday, May 4

8:30am  Ottumwa Community Kitchen Table
  Location: Riverside Family Restaurant
  1317 E. Mary Street

  Ottumwa

12:00 Noon   Mt. Pleasant Community Kitchen Table
  Location: Hy-Vee Lunch Counter
  1700 E. Washington

  Mt. Pleasant

2:30pm  Tour of the Tri-City Energy Biodiesel Plant
  With Mayor David Gudgel

  Location: Tri-City Energy
  410 Johnson Street

  Keokuk

5:30pm   Jobs and Energy Town Hall Meeting
  Location: Iowa Hotel
  Common Room

  401 Main Street
  Keokuk

Saturday, May 5

9:00am   Burlington Community Kitchen Table
  With Senator Tom Courtney
  Location: Laura’s Restaurant and Dairy Bar
  1717 Summer Street

  Burlington

12:00 noon  Cinco de Mayo Celebration
  Location: Ron-De-Voo Park
  Third Street (Downtown)

  West Liberty

1:15pm   Renewable Energy Town Hall
  Location: Hoover House
  102 W. Main Street

  West Branch

4:15pm   Meet & Greet
  With Representative Nate Reichert
  Location: Strawberry Farm Bed & Breakfast
  3402 Tipton Road

  Muscatine

A while back I linked to noneed4thneed’s call for people to ask the candidates where they stand on permanent bases in Iraq.

Tim Tagaris of the Dodd campaign sent me this link, which contains a write-up from an interview with Dodd, as well as an audio link. Dodd is firmly against permanent bases in Iraq.

So if you get a chance to ask him a question this weekend, you might want to focus on a different issue.

John Deeth says he will probably cover one of Dodd’s events.

If you are able to attend any of them as well, please put up a diary afterwards. First-person accounts are always interesting.

Today, the National Journal released their latest rankings on the Democrats seeking the presidential nomination in 2008.  Here are their rankings:

1. Hillary Clinton

2. Barack Obama

3. John Edwards

4. Bill Richardson

5. Chris Dodd

6. Tom Vilsack

7. Joe Biden

8. Wesley Clark

9. Dennis Kucinich

10. Mike Gravel

Make sure to check out what they have to say about each candidate and the fundraising predictions that they are making.

Let me add a couple of things to the questions or things they are talking about in their descriptions of each candidate.  It seems that they frame Clinton’s problem as one of responsibility or the ability to appear genuine.  Iowa Democrats, in my opinion, are looking for a genuine candidate who is able, ready, and willing to admit mistakes.  John Edwards and Barack Obama easily have that advantage over her — and I’m pretty sure some Iowa Democrats are already holding that against her.

Chuck Todd and Marc Ambinder are looking for some staff beyond Nevada to impress them some more and prove that he is everyone’s second choice.  Here’s some nice news that I have heard: former Iowa Democratic Party Field Director Brad Frevert has joined Richardson’s campaign as his go-to guy for Iowa field operations.  Frevert’s an Iowa-boy, and worked with Jesse Harris (who is Vilsack’s field guy), so we know he’s got Iowa field knowledge coming out the wazoo.

They note that Chris Dodd is basically raising lots of money because he’s got a cushy position as Chair of the Senate Banking Committee.  It is true, but he’s also taking leadership on restoring Habeas Corpus.  That’ll give him a little edge with which to hold on to some grassroots activists.

Finally, we get to Vilsack, and this is the question I have to ask: Does the endorsement of Barack Obama by Tom Miller and Mike Fitzgerald really mean anything?  Todd and Ambinder seem to think that’s bad news, as do the folks over at CityView’s Civic Skinny.  Now, maybe because I’m young I might be a bit naive about Iowa politics, but do Miller and Fitzgerald really have that big of a following in Iowa that their endorsement would swing Iowa voters to Obama?  I don’t believe that for one bit, but I guess I have to keep inserting the naive bit just in case.  Both Miller and Fitzgerald have been around in state Democratic politics forever and neither were indebted to Vilsack at all, so I don’t think there was a lot of pressure for Vilsack to lock up their endorsement.

And let’s not forget, Tom Miller endorsed Joe Lieberman in 2004 and Lieberman didn’t even make it to the caucuses.  I’m not saying Obama won’t make it to the caucuses (he will) but Miller seems to endorsed based on how well you’re doing early on in the race, not simply based on issues.

Finally, Joe Biden will be back in the state this weekend (or is supposed to be, but it looks like Sen. Reid might be scheduling a vote for Saturday), so I think we’ll officially be able to gauge Iowan reactions to his campaign after he’s been here as a serious candidate.

Anyway, what’re your thoughts on the rankings?  And if you haven’t already, make sure to vote in the poll on the left side of the page.