Richardson pledges to respect DNC Primary Calendar

Bill Richardson just announced that he has signed a pledge to respect the Pre-February 5 window set by the Democratic National Committee. This is a great thing and here's why....

For those of you who missed my earlier posts about this, they are here and here. Basically, the Democratic National Committee set out on a years long process to open the early stages of the nominating process to more diversity than Iowa and New Hampshire had to offer. After a long process, and having given consideration to many States, Nevada and South Carolina were selected to join the original two "Early States".

However, Florida's Legislature moved their Primary date into conflict with DNC Rules. Michigan began the process to pass a law in response. In short, a chaotic nominating process was well underway that could soon have spun out of control. Thankfully, the DNC let it be known that they were sticking to their guns and would severely penalize anyone who held a delegate selection process in violation of the rules.

Apparently, it was heard loud and clear by Michigan, whose State Chair Mark Brewer seems to be backing down from the January 15 Primary he previously seemed to be pursuing. Michigan Liberal has this:

"The Michigan Democratic Party has made no decision as to whether to participate in a primary," (Democratic Party chairman Mark Brewer) said in the article. "When enacted, this bill gives us another option in addition to our DNC-approved caucus. When this bill becomes law we will weigh our options and decide how to proceed."

And, in giving credit where it is due, Governor Richardson apparently heard the message loud and clear as well. Who will be the next candidate who is in favor of following the rules?

DNC sends strong message

Today, the Rules and Bylaws Committee of the Democratic National Committee met to approve delegate selection plans for the 2008 Presidential nominating process. While it is usually a mundane process about percentages and process, today's meeting held additional significance.

Over the past several years, a process has been underway for Iowa and New Hampshire to share the "pre-window" period, which is the date before which no State Party is allowed to hold its nominating contest. The date for 2008 is January 5 and only Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina are allowed to hold their caucuses and primaries.

South Carolina and Nevada were chosen mainly because they added the voice of minorities to the very important early contests. Nevada has a significant Latino/Hispanic population. In South Carolina, African Americans are expected to make up as much as half of the Primary vote.

However, Florida's legislature passed a law moving their Primary to a date before February 5. I previously wrote that the Florida Democratic Party was a 'rogue' Party. I regret having used such strong language. Florida faces a ballot initiative on January 29, 2008 that the Democratic Party vigorously opposes. It seems as though they were hoping to use the turnout from a Presidential Primary to defeat this initiative.

While I understand the motivations of the Florida Party, that is not justification for violating the generations-old pre-window period. Every State faces its own challenges without the expectation that the Presidential nominating process of its party be altered to meet their specific needs.

Accordingly, the Rules and By-Laws Committee gave the Florida Democratic Party thirty days to amend their delegate selection plan to conform with Party Rules or risk a 100% penalty of their delegates to the 2008 National Convention. This means that, unless they respect the pre-window, no delegates from Florida will be seated at the Convention.

This is significant. Very significant. Today's meeting was about sending a strong message that the Party nominating calendar will be honored. That message was emphatically sent.

The Michigan Democratic Party is the next that could be affected. While their plan today received conditional approval, there is a bill on the way through their legislature to move their Primary to January 15, in violation of Party Rules. Today's actions should put the skids on that effort.

Michigan Democratic Party Chair, Mark Brewer has been playing a dangerous game that could endanger his reputation. While putting out a statement saying the MDP vigorously opposes the "Republican plan" that passed the State Senate, he failed to mention that, on the substantive issue of the date of the primary, all Senate Democrats voted FOR the January 15 date.

Further, Governor Jennifer Granholm's office confirms that Democratic Party officials in Michigan, in a conference call, agreed in principle that Michigan's Presidential Primary should be changed in order to make it a significant part of the the nomination process.

Florida's argument is much stronger than Michigan's as to whether they should receive a waiver to the Rules. Therefore, Chairman Brewer and the Michigan Democratic Party should take notice of the action today by the DNC. They appear to have no patience for the violation of the Primary calendar set by them after years on input.

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!

Live Blog of the Logo Debate

It's pretty long, so I wouldn't dream of putting it all here. But, here's a link to it on Huffington Post. I have to admit that it was weird doing the Live Blog. It really reads as if I was watching the debate and commenting on it with friends as it was happening. Quite odd to think that thousands of people are reading what my thoughts were.....

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.

Live Blogging the Logo Debate

I'll be live blogging the Logo/HRC Presidential Forum tomorrow night. It'll be on the front page of Huffington Post during the debate. Please stop in and see me banter back and forth about the discussion with HuffPo's News Director. The Forum starts at 9pm Eastern time.

It's actually my first time live blogging, so take it easy on me. :)

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.

Anti-Semit Bigot Loving to Hate John Edwards

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are consistently called "rock stars" by journalists describing their public appearances on the campaign trail. John Edwards doesn't get those kinds of props from the journalists. But, we're finding that the right wing loves to talk about John Edwards.

Usually the tactics they are using on John Edwards would be reserved for the General Election. However, they've gone hard and early on the former Senator from North Carolina.

A few weeks ago, the Carolina Journal, a monthly publication of the John Locke Foundation printed this article on Senator Edwards' new home in North Carolina. It was an attempted smear to cast Edwards as an elitist out of touch with the average person. However, a closer look at the Locke Foundation shows that they are a conservative organization who aligns themselves with some of the most right wing groups in Washington. This link shows organizations who they suggest their readers to consult for information on "important issues." Among this A-List of conservative groups is the Heritage Foundation, which is a juggernaut of the right wing movement.

After Matt Drudge linked to the article on the Carolina Journal website, they posted a message that their website was temporarily down because of all of the traffic generated by the link. While I think it was more of a function of dedicating ALL of their server space to handle the hits they were getting, I think they also didn't want to make it easy for visitors to discover their conservative bend. I suspect that very few people have returned to the website to learn more about them since the initial link from Drudge.

Most recently, Edwards Bloggers Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan came under attack from conservative, anti-Semite, self-appointed spokesperson of Catholics, Bill Donohue. In fact, he called these fine young women "anti-Catholic, trash talking bigots." Let's see what insights supposed religious leader Donahue can offer us:

"We've already won. Who really cares what Hollywood thinks? All these hacks come out there. Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular. It's not a secret, OK? And I'm not afraid to say it. ... Hollywood likes anal sex. They like to see the public square without nativity scenes. I like families. I like children. They like abortions. I believe in traditional values and restraint. They believe in libertinism. We have nothing in common. But you know what? The culture war has been ongoing for a long time. Their side has lost." [MSNBC's Scarborough Country, 12/8/04]

He doesn't sound anything like someone with the moral authority to judge anyone, much less two young women who passionately advocate things like women's health. I'm not a Catholic, but if I were, I'd be standing up and screaming that this right wing, bigoted anti-Semite does NOT represent me. I know many Catholics and they're nothing like this jerk. By the way, criticism of Catholic policies is nothing new. There is plenty of internal debate among loyal, dedicated Catholics about the direction of their Church. There always has been. There always will be.

All day yesterday, the Netroots folks sat on pins and needles wondering if such pandering right-wing jerks would be able to sever the relationship between them and John Edwards. Edwards faced tremendous pressure from both the Conservatives and the progressive blogging community. Matt Browner-Hamlin has a post here on HuffPost that is an awesome description of how it all played out.

Many of us feared Edwards would listen to conventional Washington political consultants and throw these bloggers under the proverbial bus. However, it appears that Edwards has personally intervened to determine the action of the campaign. He released a statement today. The following line shows me that he not only understands the support the Netroots has shown him, but that he's got conviction, loyalty, and that he's not going to let the right wing tell him how to run his campaign:

"We're beginning a great debate about the future of our country, and we can't let it be hijacked. It will take discipline, focus, and courage to build the America we believe in."

The score:
John Edwards: 1
Netroots Movement: 1
Conservative Jerks: 0

Please go to Democracy in Action to send an email to the Press supporting these two bloggers. It will send a message that we will not cede public debates to jerks like Bill Donohue. Here is what he had to say about it all:

"I have news for him--the Catholic League--not Edwards--will decide what the debate will be about, and it won't be about the nation."

Don't let this jerk get away with this. It's time for the progressive movement to proudly defend the high ground and put this issue to rest. We will NOT surrender anything to vicious right wingers.

'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.

Edwards: "It's time for Americans to be patriotic about something other than war."

I just watched this video, which contains excerpts from John Edwards' speech at Riverside Church in New York City on Martin Luther King, Jr. Day. It's the same pulpit from which Dr. King delivered an inspirational speech opposing the Vietnam War a year before his tragic death.

Edwards delivers an eloquent and thoughtful speech. He looks comfortable speaking to a largely African American church. His message is moving. His politics are on point. It's nine minutes long, but worth listening to when you have the time. The line that stood out for me, in the title of this post, comes at around 8 minutes and 30 seconds. That's the kind of message that will truly resonate with so much of America.

Time For Offense

Democrats around the country need to learn to go on the offense and stay there. We've been playing defense for far too long. We may never again have the factors that contributed to our victories in 2006. So, we've got to learn to play hard and play smart.

Here are TWO ideas that State Parties should adopt. They are applicable to both Blue and Red States.

FIRST, all State Parties should attack any Republican House Member who does NOT support every aspect of the House Democrats' First 100 Hours agenda. Not only do each of these issues have widespread public support, but Republicans are voting in droves with the Dems. State Parties should make extra, strong attacks on any vulnerable Republican who is not voting for these issues. These Republicans should face questions from their local press as often as possible about their opposition. It will slowly build a body of unfavorable press coverage that will come in handy come 2008.

On the flip side, the State Party organizations should work to promote their Democratic Members that are supporting the agenda. This is particularly important for new Members. The DCCC cannot be expected to support our incumbent protection efforts alone. We need engagement at the State and Local level.

SECOND, in early Primary States, there is an opportunity to gain favorable coverage by using the Iraq War. The Republican Presidential candidates will be travelling often to these States. This will give State and Local Party leaders the opportunity to push for hardened opposition to escalating the war. The more we can get them on the record for supporting it, the harder we can hit them for their lack of responsiveness to public opinion. For State and Local Republican Party Leaders that support 'pro-escalation' candidates, they CAN and SHOULD be called to task for supporting this policy by way of their endorsement. Even in Red States, we can continue to drive public opinion in opposition to the War in Iraq.

We should also continue to press Democratic candidates for President on this issue. There is NO room for a Democratic Presidential candidate that supports the failed policies of President Bush.

By utilizing this strategy, we can not only control the debate, but win it. By attacking State and Local officials for their Presidential endorsement of pro-escalation candidates, we can also make inroads in non-Federal elections in those States.

Please urge your party Leaders to have an agenda and be aggressive about it. We must NOT let Republicans get away with the failed policies of the past or not supporting the initiatives the public has clearly asked for.

Here is how you can reach the Early Primary and Caucus State Parties. There should also be links to local parties within the State websites. Click here for the DNC's interactive map of State Parties for other contact information.

Iowa Democratic Party
5661 Fleur Dr
Des Moines, IA 50321
515-244-7292
515-244-5051 (fax)
http://www.iowademocrats.org/
Chair: Scott Brennan; Vice Chair: Sarah Swisher; Executive Director: Mike Milligan

New Hampshire Democratic Party
2 1/2 Beacon Street
Concord, NH 03301
603-225-6899
603-225-6797 (fax)
http://www.nh-democrats.org/
Chair: Kathleen Sullivan; Vice Chair: Raymond Buckley; Executive Director: Nick Clemons

Nevada Democratic Party
1325 E. Vegas Valley, Suite C
Las Vegas, NV 89109
702-737-VOTE
702-735-2700 (fax)
http://www.nvdems.com/
Chair: Hon. Tom Collins; Vice Chair: Teresa Benitez-Thompson; Executive Director: Alison Schwartz

South Carolina Democratic Party
1529 Hampton Street, Suite 200
Columbia, SC 29201
800-765-1692 (toll free)
803-799-7798 (local)
803-765-1692 (fax)
http://www.scdp.org/
Chair: Joe Erwin; Vice Chair: Carol Khare Fowler; Executive Director: Lachlan McIntosh

McCain Picks up Key Endorsement, College Republicans Off-Base

In an earlier post, I specualted that Senator John McCain might be announcing for President in South Carolina today. That was based on an email being circulated by the College Republican President at the College of Charleston. The email is below and was sent with the subject line "HUGE NEWS."

Dear College Republicans,


Are you interested in not only witnessing, but also participating in the creation of modern history? Senator John McCain will be making a key public announcement on Tuesday, January 16 at 1:00 in North Charleston.

As a member of his Presidential Exploratory Campaign and as the President of College Republicans, I invite each of you to attend, and encourage you to bring your roommates, your friends, family and fellow students. Furthermore, if you are interested in participating in his campaign, we would love to welcome you on board (just e-mail me).


Let's show Senator John McCain a warm Charleston welcome! Please RSVP to me by Monday, January 15 by 12:00 noon, and if you need transportation, we can arrange it!

Turns out, McCain's primary reason for the trip was to line up more support for his upcoming Presidential Campaign. The College Republicans were just full of hype.

Today, he scored the endorsement of South Carolina House Speaker Bobby Harrell. This rounds out nearly every major Republican in the State. The only defection from the lot is U.S. Senator Jim Demint, who has jumped on Mitt Romney's bandwagon.

Since McCain has locked up the support of nearly every influential Republican in South Carolina, he will enter the primary there in an excellent position. No Republican in recent history has won the party's nomination without winning the South Carolina Republican Primary. Should McCain make it through Iowa and New Hampshire, he would be poised to clench the nomination with a win in South Carolina.

Given his continued tone deafness on the Iraq War, this is great news for the Left.

McCain Announcing on Tuesday in SC?

There is an email being circulated among Republican activists in Charleston, SC claiming a "historic" announcement being made by Senator John McCain there on Tuesday. The email stops short of providing specifics on the announcement.

There are only a few things that John McCain could say that would be "major." Since he's unlikely to switch his position on Iraq or leave the Republican Party, odds are that he's making his entry into the Presidential race official.

He wouldn't be the first candidate to announce in Charleston. In 2003, John Kerry announced for President on an aircraft carrier in Charleston Harbor. McCain's presumed choice of location for an announcement is significant because in modern history, no Republican has won his party's nomination for President without winning the South Carolina Republican Primary.

The McCain folks are mum. So far, inquiries at his Senate office and the Straight Talk America Committee have been not been returned. I'll update you if I get further confirmation.

SC Dems to Hold First Debate

South Carolina Democrats will hold the first Presidential Debate of the 2008 cycle on April 26, 2007, according to The State newspaper in Columbia, SC. The debate will be held on the campus of South Carolina State University, alma mater to new House Majority Whip, Jim Clyburn.

House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn of South Carolina said he was touched the debate will be held at his alma mater.

"I fully expect that the leading Democrats who are considering a run for the presidency, will not miss this opportunity to travel to Orangeburg and meet the terrific students, faculty and staff of S.C. State for this historic occasion," Clyburn said.

Last summer, the Democratic National Committee sought to expand the early primary field in order to reach out to African American voters as well as Hispanic voters. South Carolina was selected because of the prominence of African American voters in its Democratic Primary. South Carolina Democrats also held a First in the South Primary in 2004.

That the debate will take place at South Carolina State, a Historically Black College, underscores the importance that African Americans will play in the Southern Primary. Jim Clyburn's influence in Washington and in South Carolina will ensure the debate is widely attended by all would-be candidates.

As with the debate held by SC Dems in the 2004 cycle, this debate will bring much attention to the Palmetto State. I have no doubt that my fellow SC Democrats will make us all proud with a first class event to showcase the talent we will have heading into the 2008 Presidential election.

The McCain Doctrine

Newly minted Presidential candidate John Edwards today showed his political prowess and willingness to play hardball. In an interview on ABC's This Week, Edwards took on Republican frontrunner John McCain:

"I actually, myself, believe that this idea of surging troops, escalating the war -- what Senator McCain has been talking about -- what I would call now the McCain doctrine ... (is) dead wrong," said Edwards.

Some of the criticism that progressives have had with an Edwards candidacy is that he is "too soft." This direct challenge to McCain should help quell some of those concerns. That it is also couched in terms of ending the war in Iraq should also further his credibility with progressives.

This tactic should also show that Edwards is in this to win it. I'll be looking forward to how this will play out. So far, there's no comment from McCain.

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.