Hillary at the LiveStrong Presidential Forum

A little bit ago, I watched Hillary Clinton at the LiveStrong Presidential Forum. She made a couple of statements that are incredibly interesting.

First, she announced that she would declare a "War on Cancer" when she is President. She said that we need to unleash the potential of researchers to accomplish big things, like curing cancer. She believes that this is one piece of the 'big ideas' that she has been talking about on the campaign trail.

She contrasted the idea of a war against cancer with what she claimed was a "War Against Science" led by George Bush. It has become more and more documented the muzzle that his Administration has put on government scientists in order to promote the political interests of the White House.

Hillary has certainly got her detractors in the Progressive Movement. But this statement is something that we should be proud of. We need to have something that we can put our hope in. We need to believe that we can accomplish big things. Hillary's statements today do that. Good for her.

Hillary's first campaign ad

It's on the air in Iowa and it's called invisible. She talks about the different kinds of people that have been invisible to the Bush Administration and how she'll be different. I have to admit, I think it's great. I'll be looking to see what Edwards and Obama come up with in Iowa, and when they go on the air.

Hillary seems to be making a move to overtake Edwards in Iowa. It's the only early Primary State that she's not leading in. I'd say this commercial is a good first effort to give Hillary more warmth and depth as a candidate. There is still a ways to go, but I think they know what their challenges are!

Are we safer since 9/11?

John Edwards has been bringing up the idea that America is not safer since September 11. Hillary completely disagreed with him during the Presidential Forum at the YearlyKos Convention. I think they've both got good reasons for what they are saying, but I also think that Edwards is barking up the wrong tree.

Hillary's point is that we have spent a lot of time and effort providing more training and better equipment to our nation's first responders. She also cites increased security procedures that have been put in place to secure transportation infrastructure and government institutions.

Edwards contends that the rogue foreign policy of the Bush Administration has indeed made America less secure because of the damage done to America's reputation. After all, we have recently been told by the government that Al Qaeda is stronger than ever. This is surely due, in no small part, to increased recruitment in direct response to our reckless Middle East policies.

Like I said, I think they both have valid points. But, herein lies my problem with Edwards position here. He is promoting the same agenda of fear that we've been hearing from the Bush-Cheney-Rove Administration for six and a half years. Frankly, I'm sick of hearing what color the terrorist alert is and I'm sick of Leaders thinking the way to the hearts of voters is through fear.

Edwards is going down a slippery slope on this argument. I'm sure it somehow figures into his strategy to be the anti-establishment, populist candidate. If that's true, then I think they have made a miscalculation that could be very damaging to them in the long run. I'm sure I'm not the only one who is sick of fear being used to motivate votes. Americans are looking for someone who will make them feel good about the future. Edwards is usually pretty good at that, so he needs to drop this whole fear bit. He'll be a better candidate for it.

Hillary's DOMA Dilemma

Here is a response that Hillary Clinton gave in response to a question posed by Paul Hogarth of BeyondChron during her breakout session at the YearlyKos Convention:

Secondly, DOMA, I believe that DOMA served a very important purpose. I was one of the architects in the strategy against the Marriage Amendment to the constitution, and DOMA gave us a bright line to be able to hold back the votes that were building up to do what I consider to be absolutely abominable and that would be to amend the constitution to enshrine discrimination. I believe marriage should be left to the states. I support civil unions as I’ve said many times with full equality of benefits and so I think that DOMA appropriately put the responsibility in the states where it has historically belonged and I think you’re beginning to see states take action. I think it’s, I think part three of DOMA needs to be repealed because part three stands in the way of the full extension of federal benefits and I support that. So that’s the first.

She pretty much said that banning equal marriage is discrimination, which makes me wonder why she isn't better on issues of equal rights. But, that's a completely different issue.

However, if Hillary supported passage of DOMA then as a means to prevent passage of FMA, then the fact that FMA no longer stands a chance at passage should be taken into account now. Accordingly, she should take her support of repealing parts of DOMA further.

The commerce clause of the United States constitution makes it clear that each of the States shall respect the laws of other States. Accordingly, it wouldn't be a stretch for her to advocate repealing that provision of DOMA.

Recent news articles in Newsweek and the Washington Blade showcase the tremendous support that Hillary is receiving from the LGBT communities around the country.

The question remains with regard to what we are getting for our support. Very little time has been spent addressing LGBT rights during the previous Presidential debates and forums. This Thursday, Logo Network and the Human Rights Campaign will host a forum with the Democratic Presidential candidates. (Joe Biden never committed and Chris Dodd recently canceled.)

Here is a comment which doesn't make me think that any candidate will be pressed towards taking positions in support of our movement toward equal rights.

The purpose of this forum is not to provide gotcha moments, because that doesn’t serve anybody well,” said Jonathan Capehart, a gay Washington Post editorial page writer who will serve as a panelist for the forum.

But you do want to get the candidates talking about these issues in a way that’s human and not overly rehearsed.

I hope the panelists will consider pressing Hillary on this point. Accordingly, I hope Hillary will show the courage to expand her position and show the LGBT community that she is truly willing to fight for equality.

Thoughts on YearlyKos

I just returned yesterday from the 2nd Annual YearlyKos Convention. So, I've had a couple days to digest everything that occurred while I was there. Out of the thousands of moments that transpired, there are a handful that I think bear recounting for their possible impact in the future.

First, this is the last YearlyKos Convention, at least by this name. Next year's gathering will be named Netroots Nation. I'd been given a heads up that this was happening and I think it's incredibly appropriate. Markos Moulitsas was incredibly generous to loan the DailyKos brand to get this project off the ground, but the event is less about Kos and bloggers, per se, than it is about building an entirely new progressive movement -- one that is a collaboration between bloggers, readers, progressive organizations, grassroots organizers, political activists, and anybody else who cares enough to do something to move our country in a progressive direction. I'm glad that the new name will reflect the vast alliance that exists to build this people powered movement.

The Washington Post ran a piece yesterday by Jose Antonio Vargas about the lack of diversity at YearlyKos. It's true. The make-up of the progressive blogosphere is mostly white and mostly men. However, we're collectively working to fix that. KidOakland, a frequent and popular diarist at DailyKos raised enough money to recruit 17 upcoming minority bloggers to attend the conference. He plans to continue his effort to increase minority representation. I intend to do my own effort to increase LGBT representation next year. After all, the event is only two years old and there is a long way we can go in improving lots of things about it.

Hillary Clinton was the subject of lots of speculation. She is notoriously unpopular with the progressive blogosphere. She is the subject of endless posts that are critical of pretty much everything about her. There was an initial situation which caused confusion about whether she would attend a breakout schedule in addition to the Presidential Forum. When it was all said and done, she packed the room. Many people expected there to be boos. (There was a moment of booing, but it was when she proclaimed that she was a Cubs fan. She followed it up with "Hey, I've still got the t-shirt that says 'No Lights at Wrigley', so it was a nice recovery.) Having been an intern at the White House and having encountered her on numerous occasions, I expected her to win many people over. The end result is that she showed herself to be self deprecating, incredibly knowledgeable, and willing to take on some of her harshest critics in the Party. Overall, I'd say she comes out a winner.

The other winner for the weekend would be John Edwards. He solidified his populist credentials by lashing out against Lobbyist cash to campaigns. His challenge to other candidates to stop taking it put Hillary in a very uncomfortable position to defend Washington Lobbyists. I do have to say, however, that I thought this was a disingenuous position for Edwards because I thought he accepted Political Action Committee money. However, his campaign staff has confirmed that he does NOT take PAC money either. While I don't believe taking either kind of money amounts to being a sellout, I think he hit a nerve that many at YK responded to. I've heard about it today on some of the news networks, so he make get some mileage out of it.

I'd have to call the Netroots Movement the biggest winner of the event. I realize that the millions of us who are proud to be a part of this movement achieved a major moment of legitimacy Friday when the Democratic Presidential candidates filed on stage one by one. It was quite a sight to see and incredibly moving for most in the room. The nostalgia, however, quickly turned into a robust exchange of ideas and policy. What transpired was the liveliest exchange between the candidates. Of course, what else would you expect from a bunch of bloggers?

While the official events of the conference were varied and educational, the best action was in the hallways, bars, and atrium between the hotel and the connecting McCormick Convention Center. It was here that acquaintances were made, faces were connected with names, and ideas were hatched to further the goals of the progressive netroots movement.

There is a big question lingering my my mind. In a short time, the Netroots Movement has come to fruition. During the maturation of other movements, there is always a time of frustration between competing factions and philosophy about the direction of the movement. This will be forced upon us as well. I believe that it will be met with enthusiasm and grace. If it isn't, it threatens to destroy something that is very much needed in American political discourse.

I don't think that will happen, but in the meantime, I'll continue to do what I can to advance this movement and help it grow.

Bill O'Reily.com being investigated by Secret Service

After seeing this post by John Aravosis on AmericaBlog, I was incensed and concerned at the same time. Here is the comment on O'Reilly's blog that crossed the line:

If Hillary wins, I will be respectful of our leader. If you could read my thoughts, I would be on the SS [Secret Service] watch list.

So, I did what a responsible person should do when they see something like this on a blog. I called the Secret Service to report it. This comment isn't about politics or defaming Senator Clinton. It outright states a threat to her life. It is unacceptable.

The Secret Service, who does an amazing job protecting their subjects, were very professional. The first person I spoke to transferred me to another person. Initially, she dismissed my comments. But, when I read her the comment and suggested that the person could be easily identified, she took me much more seriously. She called back minutes later, asking me to talk to someone else. That agent took the information and said that he would refer it to their Internet team.

It is a completely different discussion to have when debating the appropriateness of offensive comments. This, however is not a part of that discussion. When the life of anyone is threatened in any part of our corner of the internet, we should take appropriate action.

SC Dem Presidential Debate: Pre-Debate Analysis

I wrote a piece for Huffington Post this morning and just forgot to repost it here. So, I'll put it below. I'm also going to be doing a post-debate analysis as well for Huffington. I'll be sure to put here for you as well.

I hope you catch the debate. Let me know what you think!

Lane

Tonight's Presidential Debate: A Lot on the Line
Huffington Post

Tonight's Democratic presidential debate in South Carolina provides the first nationwide platform for the Democratic candidates to sell their candidacies to voters. In addition to being broadcast by MSNBC, it will be carried by all local NBC affiliates in South Carolina, one of the four early Primary or Caucus States. Candidates will need to appeal not only to Democrats nationally, but will also need to pay special attention to the still maturing ground of South Carolina Presidential Primary voters.

The Palmetto State was chosen for an early Primary position largely because of a significant presence of African American voters, which was previously lacking in the early contests. South Carolina's Primary is the best opportunity for this largely Democratic constituency to influence the nomination contest between the most diverse field of candidates ever fielded by the Democratic Party. African American voters are expected to comprise 50-55% of the Primary voters and could very well choose the winner.

When the Debate kicks off at 7pm on the campus of South Carolina State University, a Historically Black College, there will be a lot on the line. The first thing that each campaign will strive to do is to prevent a major gaffe. At such an early stage, it could be a deadly blow to any of the campaigns, particularly those of the lower tier.

John Edwards won the South Carolina Democratic Primary in 2004. Then, it was largely written off by the other candidates, so it is an unknown factor how he will play there in 2008. As a native South Carolinian and former Senator from North Carolina, he does have somewhat of a home court advantage. During the debate, the populist themes that he has been pitching to audiences across the nation should be well received by both his South Carolina audience and national Democrats. His work on poverty is a defining issue of his campaign and one that many Democrats will feel is returning to the mission of their Party. He is also a leading voice among the contenders in opposing the Iraq War, which he should emphasize as soon as possible so he can capture the anti-war Primary voters who will only support a viable candidate. His biggest challenge will be to convince those same voters that he is indeed a viable candidate. With Clinton and Obama receiving the lion's share of the media coverage, he will need to muster all of his abilities to speak to the average person and inspire them to believe in his campaign.

Hillary Clinton is as well known in South Carolina as she is anywhere else. That carries the same benefits and challenges as it does nationwide. People trust her experience and judgment. She is a rock star and draws large crowds. In spite of all that, she doesn't seem to connect on an individual level with voters in the same manner as some of the other candidates. After more than six years of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, Democratic voters will be looking for someone who inspires them to believe there is something better. While they remember fondly the days of the Clinton Presidency of the 1990's, it does not translate into an immediate belief that she carries the same magic of her husband. Hillary will undoubtedly remain firmly on her well vetted message and deliver her points with poise and confidence. Her biggest challenge will be to add some "warm fuzzy factor" to how voters perceive her and to convince them that she hasn't been living in a bubble since 1992. If she can win in the South Carolina Primary, it could very well cement her race for the nomination. In a State where John Edwards and Barack Obama would presumably have major advantages, this could be where Hillary puts them away.

Barack Obama is the least experienced candidate in the Presidential campaign, yet has attracted a large and diverse national following. His transformational style of speaking has inspired many people and fueled a stronger than expected fundraising operation. He speaks eloquently and is well polished. Given the large African American population in South Carolina, he may come into the State's Primary with the best advantage of all of the candidates. However, he cannot count on that support to gravitate to him simply because of his historic candidacy. African American voters are complex people and have a long history of being disappointed. Obama will have to work to earn their respect and support. The average African American voter in South Carolina will not share his experience of being a Harvard graduate and successful big city lawyer. He will have to tell a compelling personal story to make this an asset rather than a quality that separates him from voters who do not share his recent experiences. Given his lack of experience under such scrutiny, I believe he is at greater risk of making a mistake than Edwards or Clinton. Part of his challenge will be to maintain his transformational style of speaking while fielding a wide range of questions during the debate. Should he be able to walk the fine line between the two and not lose his golden touch, he could come out as the winner.

Bill Richardson is arguably the most experienced candidate on the Democratic side of the Presidential race. Yet, he is largely unknown to a national audience as well as South Carolina voters. Richardson will need to sell his wide-ranging experience in elected and appointed office and make it relevant to the average voter. To do this, he will need to speak with authority on a wide range of issues and stake out positions that set him apart from the other candidates. This will help him overcome his biggest challenge in this debate: to make the jump to a top-tier candidate. He's got the ability to do that, but it remains to be seen if he will.

The other candidates participating in the debate all share the same goals. They all need to increase name identification and distinguish themselves from the rest of the lower-tier candidates. This will be a difficult challenge, given the number of candidates and the amount of attention that will be given to the top-tier competition.

There always remains the chance that somebody will score a major one-liner that will earn a massive amount of free media. Those are the moments that propel an unknown into a competitive race or cement front-runner status. Those moments are also what keep the attention of millions focused on every step of a Presidential race. We may witness a landscape changing moment tonight that will go down in history. Maybe not. Either way, it proves to be an exciting night for the Democratic Presidential Campaign and an opportunity to see the candidates at their best.

'08 Hopefuls Stump Under Same Roof for First Time

The General Session at today's Democratic National Committee meeting dealt with a little party business. However, the main attraction, which packed the ballroom at the Washington Hilton, was the convergence of the men and woman seeking the Democratic Party's nomination for President.

Every speech given was well received by those gathered. Each speech had its own merits. During my little bit of downtime before another event, I wanted to give you the "highlight" of the Obama, Edwards, and Clinton speeches. And when I say "highlight", what I mean is: what I thought about it.....

Barack Obama was greeted like a rock star. He gave a thoughtful, straight forward speech. He returned to campaign themes that he has used before: "it's not about hype", "our politics are too small", and about "the need for a genuine debate about concrete ideas." His speech contained many inspirational notions, but it seemed to contradict reality. Were it not for hype, he would never be considered a Presidential contender, after two years in the U.S. Senate. While his lofty notions and ideas appeal to the rank and file, they lack the concrete specifics he calls for at the same time. I understand that you can't talk detailed policy in a stump speech, but the main criticism coming from activists is that they're not sure what Obama wants to do for America besides raise the level of political discourse. I hope in the near future, Obama will begin to deliver his ideas on how to get us out of Iraq, how to keep jobs in America, how to provide Universal Healthcare, and on many more important issues.

John Edwards entered to the tune of a country song that I recognized, but don't know the name of. The recognizable lyric was "This is my country"....or something like that. He started out slowly, talking about people in different situations. I wasn't quite sure where he was headed with it, then he brought it all together in a rousing, momentum building rally cry to "Stand with" each of the people whose stories he had just told and to "Stand with America." From that moment on, Edwards was on fire. He spoke to the historical values of the Democratic Party to take care of children, carry the mantle on education, and help eradicate poverty. He talked about working people worrying about losing their pensions and having no safety net after thirty years of work. The unions were mentioned several times and cheered loudly in response. His words about the War in Iraq were by far the strongest in opposition, which was very well received. Edwards' message was populist, inspiring, and incredibly popular. And....he won the standing ovation competition.

Hillary Clinton also entered the room like a rock star. She delivered a traditional stump style speech that was well received by those in the cavernous room. She covered all the right points: Bush's failed leadership, the need for healthcare, the economy, jobs, and Iraq. There was one thing I just couldn't get out of my head, though: the vote she cast to go to war in 2002. I'm very confused about my opinion on this. On one side of the room, Code Pink, an anti-war organization, staged a small protest. They each had a letter on their shirts that altogether read "NO WAR" and with their left hands, held up in peace signs. I know that Hillary has said many things about the vote that she cast to go to war. Today, she even said "If I was President in 2002, we would not have gone to war in Iraq." So, she's danced all around saying her vote was wrong and apologizing for it. I just don't understand why she won't do that. For me and many other party activists, that will remain an issue in the back of our minds. It may end up being an issue that will make room for someone else to gain support. That being said, she also gave a great speech and she's still the front-runner among the establishment.

I'd say each of these three will be well-received around the country. But, each of their speeches were different. As they take their campaigns from State to State and City to City, people will decide which ideas and style they want to represent them in November 2008. Given that each of their approaches is different enough, we may see a narrowing of the field sooner than we all think.

Hillary: I was raised in a middle class family in the middle of the Country

Today, Hillary Rodham Clinton officially entered the fray of Presidential politics. You should watch the video below. It's well made, she looks comfortable, the message isn't bad, and her timing is fantastic. Expect to hear a great deal about it in the next couple of days.

I'm excited about her candidacy. The mere fact that she's running is historic. But, it's got the potential to be of massive historic proportions. That alone is enough to get excited about, so this isn't an endorsement.

You can be sure that this is a decision she didn't make without careful consideration. Neither Hillary, nor Bill Clinton are big fans of losing. She's in it to win. I think she can.

To earn victory, Clinton will have to get in the trenches of Iowa, NH, Nevada, and SC. She will have to show the voters that she wants it, that she's got a vision for America, that she's willing to work for it, and that she's got what it takes to be Commander in Chief. Given her incredible discipline and talented inner-circle, I think she can do all those things. Will she?

American Research Group released a poll in December showing Hillary leading in all four early Primary and Caucus States. Click here and scroll down a little to see a graph of all possible Democratic candidates and how they fared in Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, and South Carolina.

Should Hillary be successful in earning the Democratic Party's nomination, she will also be a formidable candidate in the General Election. She's got 100% name ID and she's at 47% both positive and negative name ID. That means she's got about 6% to work with. I think that's great news. If somebody hasn't already formed a negative opinion of her, they just might not. Those numbers are better than John Kerry ended up with at the conclusion of the 2004 campaign. Let's also not forget that her husband is the best campaigner in our lifetimes. He will not be hidden from the public as he was in 2000 or sidelined by health problems as he was in 2004. You can expect him, maybe even Chelsea, to be out on the trail for her early and often.

This will be a very interesting campaign. All political hacks will relish the opportunity to observe and analyze the most diverse Democratic Primary for President in history. We may very well end up with a woman, an African American, a Hispanic, and a Southern Democrat.

I look forward to watching this campaign play out over the next year.

Hillary is In

Yesterday, one of the swearing in parties I attended was Hillary Clinton's. At that party, I pointed out Terry McAuliffe to one of my house guests from Michigan. Soon after, he stepped out of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to smoke a cigarette.

While engaged in his cancer-causing activity, he witnessed McAuliffe exit the building. While getting in a car, he commented to someone that they would "be seeing a lot more of him from now on."

From the next best thing to the horse's mouth. Hillary is running for President.

Update:
This assertion has now been confirmed by a source independent of sidewalk smokers, someone who actually works in the political arena and has first hand knowledge that Senator Clinton WILL indeed be running for President.

Don't Count out Edwards

Senator Hillary Clinton holds a large lead in national polls. These numbers are meaningless right now. The polls in Iowa, however are fairly telling. The Des Moines Register recently released a poll showing John Edwards at 36% and Clinton trailing by twenty points. Obama is two points behind Clinton. This is extremely good news for Edwards.

Despite Edwards' standing in Iowa, most national media coverage focuses only on Senators Clinton and Obama. They are unknowingly providing tremendous help to Edwards in downplaying expectations.

Two factors play into the Iowa Caucus: winning the vote and winning the expectations game. Things may change over the course of the next year, but if Edwards wins outright, then he will almost certainly beat expectations as well. John Kerry, in effect, won the nomination the night he won the Iowa Caucus. Edwards could expect the same bump out of Iowa that Kerry received.

That, combined with Edwards' extensive work with Labor over the past two years would serve him well in both Nevada and New Hampshire. If he were to win all three and then cap it all off with a victory in South Carolina, where he won in 2004, then he could be unstoppable to win the nomination.

For Edwards, it may just come down to winning it all in Iowa.