Hillary cries on camera; will she drop out?

As I'm sure everyone has heard, Hillary Clinton teared up during an interview with ABC. Some say it's contrived; others say it's a sign of the toll the campaign can take. Matt Drudge even went so far as to say that she may drop out of the race soon, due to her dropping poll numbers and ever-evaporating war chest.

Most candidates have refrained from commenting on the affair, but John Edwards decided to say the following: "I think what we need in a commander-in-chief is strength and resolve, and presidential campaigns are tough business, but being president of the United States is also tough business."

This has drawn the ire of the blogsphere, as people see his comments as a cheap shot at Clinton. Indeed, if there were one candidate who could benefit from Clinton's collapse, it would be Edwards. And he knows it: when he wasn't talking about his father working in a mill, Edwards spent the majority of the debate on Saturday lashing out at Clinton.

But this seems like a cheap shot from a candidate whose campaign is in far worse shape than Clinton's.

--Wyndam

Thoughts on the ABC New Hampshire debate

Just some random points from the Democratic debate tonight. For some reason, my bullet-points aren't working, so here they are in paragraph form:

John Edwards is becoming a single issue candidate--lobbyists are bad, lobbyists are bad! He also can't go five minutes without an anecdote about the middle class. Most come back to his father. It makes me sick. He may be from a middle class family, but he's worth millions now. Doesn't mean he can't be the champion of the average American, but stop acting like you're some impoverished kid working 18 hours at a mill.

Hillary Clinton is trying to become a candidate of change because of the Iowa results, but her entire campaign is based on her being the experience candidate. Now that it's known that people want change over experience, she's trying to alter her image. She's actually been very articulate tonight, but I don't think anyone is blinded by this new persona she's taken on.

Bill Richardson looks very tired. The campaign is taking its toll. And while he's making fine points, he's not as inspiring as he has been in the past. I like that he's staying on message, but he's described as an emotional and charismatic guy--and in most cases, he is--but on the biggest stage yet, I'm afraid that he's squandering his chance to make a real change in the voters' minds. He's subdued and while his points are substantive, he is, frankly, quite boring right now.

Barack Obama doesn't seem as slick as he was a few days ago. He's avoiding questions left and right. The questions, for once, are tough, and he's not responding well.

I liked the final question ("You've done a number of debates. What do you wish you could take back?"). But I'm surprised that anyone answered it--why bring a dead issue back to the forefront? Richardson talked about Byron White being his favorite justice, and Edwards said how sorry he was that he mentioned Clinton's attire. Obama and Clinton avoided the question.

There are two ways to judge the debate: substance and style. In terms of what was actually said, I think Richardson won. He stayed on point and raised a number of issues (energy dependence, budget balancing, education) that will take center stage over the next four years and beyond. No one else said...anything. Obama side-stepped every question to talk about change, hope and bipartisanship. Clinton spend the entire debate remodeling herself as the candidate of change, and Edwards spoke more about his father than he did American politics.

However, Richardson seemed close to sleep for most of the debate. Obama, who seemed to be playing defense for much of the contest, was good, but nowhere near the inspiring figure he was Thursday night, when he gave one of the most impassioned political speeches of the decade. Clinton and Edwards were what they were: politicians who speak well and look good. They were fine.

All the candidates disappointed me, though. This was their biggest debate yet, and some of the questions were pretty good. But they either avoided them or answered them with responses that put you to sleep.

Let's hope for more positive showings in the future.

--Wyndam

Final Iowa results

With 100% of precincts reporting...

Democrats
Barack Obama 38%
John Edwards 30%
Hillary Clinton 29%
Bill Richardson 2%
Joe Biden 1%

Republicans
Mike Huckabee 34%
Mitt Romney 25%
Fred Thompson 13%
John McCain 13%
Ron Paul 10%
Rudy Giuliani 4%
Duncan Hunter 1%

With 17% of precincts reporting...

Edwards 34%
Clinton 32%
Obama 31%
Richardson 2%

Still very early, we have a lot more to go.

Also, the Obama camp is predicting a turnout of 207,000 people. Most were predicting a turnout of 160,000-180,000. This is very good for Clinton and Obama, and not so good for Edwards, because most of his support is in rural counties, which are less populated than the urban areas where Clinton and Obama are popular.

So expect Edwards to drop off as the night goes on.

--Wyndam

Interesting strategy notes from inside the caucuses

Two quick tidbits from CNN:

1. In one precinct, the Edwards camp has set up next to Joe Biden's supporters. The Edwards people are counting on Biden not reaching the 15% threshold, which would mean his supporters would need to re-vote. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama's people are on the other side of the room, which is a long walk through the Edwards supporters, who will undoubtedly be trying to swing them their way. If for no other reason than Biden's people get fed up with the walk, and thus stay close and caucus with Edwards, then Edwards benefits. It seems so basic and, to a point, primitive, but a candidate can use all the help he can get, no matter how he gets it.

2. Some precinct captains for the second-tier candidates who receive 10-15% of the vote are urging the captains of the winners of the first vote of their precinct to send them voters to reach the 15% benchmark. The front runner would still win the precinct, but the second-tier candidate would be able to have their votes counted. If the winner of the precinct does not give them their extra people, then the second-tier candidate's captain will send his people to another front runner, which would almost ensure that the winner of the first vote would lose on the re-vote.

--Wyndam

Sometimes, I lose faith in humanity

You can disagree with Governor Richardson on a number of issues. But his political experience is unparalleled. Hell, you can even believe that experience is a non-issue in the election. But the fact remains: Richardson has the most, and few others come close.That's why I was stunned when I saw the results of this CNN opinion poll from early December.

When asked who has the right experience to be president, respondents said:

Clinton 55%

Obama 13%

Edwards 11%

Biden 6%

Richardson 5%

Dodd 2%

I will generally refrain from cursing on this site, but are you fucking kidding me?

Let's go to the tape:

Clinton: First Lady of the United States (8 years), junior Senator from New York (6 years)
Obama: Illinois State Senator (a part-time job for 8 years), junior Senator from Illinois (3 years)
Edwards: Senator from North Carolina (6 years)
Biden: Senior Senator from Delaware (33 years, current chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee)
Dodd: Congressman from Connecticut (6 years), Senator from Connecticut (26 years)

And finally...

Richardson: State Department aide (2 years), Congressman from New Mexico (14 years), U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations (1 year), U.S. Secretary of Energy (2 years), Governor of New Mexico (5 years).

Joe Biden, Chris Dodd and Bill Richardson have the more experience than any of the other candidates yet the public believes that, combined, their experience matches that of Obama, who four years ago, was a professor!

This is infuriating.

--Wyndam

Richardson to send supporters to Obama?

The Huffington Post and New York Times are reporting that, in the event that he doesn't receive 15% of the vote in a precinct, Governor Richardson will direct his people to re-vote for Barack Obama. A candidate must reach the 15% mark in order to have their votes counted. Iowa has 1,784 precincts up for grabs. According to the Times, "In return, the Obama adviser said, Obama forces will lend support to Mr. Richardson at caucuses where Mr. Obama turns out more backers than he needs to win any additional delegates."

Both campaigns have denied the reports. The story originated from a leak in the Obama camp.

Why would Richardson choose Obama? Strategy for the long-run. While Richardson is a long-time political ally of the Clintons, and support for Hillary Clinton would go a long way toward ensuring a nomination for Vice President (he is rumored to be Clinton's top choice), Richardson and the senator have opposite views on Iraq, which is the governor's main issue. John Edwards aligns most closely with Richardson on Iraq, but it's possible that the governor does not see Edwards as a viable long-term candidate--Edwards is far behind Obama and Clinton in most other state polls. By supporting Obama, whose views on Iraq resemble Richardson's, the governor could be establishing some good will for the future, if Obama is indeed the nominee. It's unlikely that he'd be Obama's VP choice (two minorities on one ticket could not fly), but he could ensure a high level cabinet position: State, Defense, etc.

Dennis Kucinich has already directed his voters to the Obama camp. In 2004, Kucinich's support of Edwards went a long way toward ensuring the senator's second place finish. With two candidates backing--and possibly a third's, depending on which way Joe Biden swings--and a lead in the poll, Obama has a very good chance of winning Iowa and gaining serious momentum for the later states.

--Wyndam

Thankfully, the media has already cast your vote for you

The supporters of second-tier candidates (God, do I hate that phrase. Can we get the ball moving on a new way to say "non-front runner"? Thanks) have long claimed that they are ignored by the mainstream media, and as a result, their campaigns suffer--we did so just a few days ago. Whether we like it or not (we don't), the media plays an enormous role in getting candidates' messages, platforms and ideas out to the public. Without coverage for all, there is no level playing field--all the people hear are the names of a few front runners. And the media goes a long way toward making your decision for you, as the only names you recognize on the ballot are the ones they have circulated.

Proving this point with substantial evidence, though, would take months of research into all coverage of the election--right now, we go with what we know to be true. But the media has now gone and proved our point for us: in the debates immediately preceding the New Hampshire caucus, only candidates who are polling at 5% or higher in the Granite State, or placed fourth or higher in the Iowa caucus will be allowed to participate.

Bill Richardson will be allowed to debate: not only is he polling at above 5% in New Hampshire, but he is widely expected to place fourth (or, hopefully, higher) in Iowa. He will join Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards. However, the rest of the Democratic field is left on the outside looking in. Joe Biden, despite his recent small surge in the poll, has no guarantee that he'll be invited. Neither do Chris Dodd or Dennis Kucinich. Mike Huckabee, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson have all be invited to the Republican debate, but Ron Paul (whose supporters are making a big stink out of this, and rightfully so, especially because Paul leads Thompson in many polls) and Duncan Hunter will likely be left out.

To their credit, Clinton and Obama have spoken out against this policy, saying that the people of New Hampshire/U.S.A. should be allowed to hear all views, and not just those of a select group. Edwards has decided to effectively not comment on the matter, which has drawn the ire of some.

This directive is of course troublesome. By constricting the number of people allowed to debate, ABC and Fox News (the debates' sponsors) are ostensibly censoring the lesser known candidates and, in the process, infringing upon and limiting the national debate. This is especially troublesome when these media companies, which are "unbiased," may be making these decisions for their own political reasons.

Fortunately, some are fighting back, and for once, the ferocity of Paul's supporters is an asset to all: supporters are engineering a sell-off of NewsCorp's (Fox News's parent company) stock.

Good for them--hopefully, this is resolved so that all can speak in this forum. All candidates should be allowed to participate. It shouldn't be a debate.

--Wyndam

The role of Bill Richardson in Iowa

Believe it: Bill Richardson can, and probably will, decide who wins Iowa.

It is unlikely, at this stage, that Richardson will win the state--while that's obviously his goal, I think the campaign would be ecstatic with a third or second place finish. There may be just a candidate or two too many to leap to claim victory.

However, that doesn't mean he can't have a profound impact on who wins the state. Iowa has an unusual caucus system: in order to have their votes counted in one of Iowa's 1784 districts, a candidate must receive 15% or more of the vote. If a candidate does not get 15% of the vote, then his supporters are free to vote again for someone who does reach the 15% threshold.

This where the second-tier candidates can decide who wins each district--they can direct their voters to some other candidate. Voters, of course, are not obligated to follow such orders, but in the past, they have generally complied with their candidate's wishes. And, all of a sudden, a district can swing from one front runner to another.

Hypothetical example: Hillary Clinton received 31% of the vote in District A. Barack Obama got 35%. John Edwards has 18%. Obama has seemingly eeked out a close victory, but wait! Joe Biden, who received 11% of the vote, instructs his supporters to vote for Clinton. Some do, and Clinton ends up edging Obama by a few points.

Bill Richardson will receive 15% + of the vote in many districts, but certainly not all of them. As the leading second-tier candidate, he'll likely have the most voters to give in the districts where he doesn't reach the 15% margin. So, who will he direct his people to vote for?

Dennis Kucinich has already told his supporters to support Obama in the districts where Kucinich doesn't qualify. But Kucinich is a third-tier candidate, and unless the race is exceptionally tight, he doesn't figure to make much of a difference. The people who can change the tide of the election are Biden, Richardson and maybe Chris Dodd. Of that group, Richardson will have the most to give.

So what does he do? He's been a long political ally of the Clintons, despite his recent negative comments on Hillary, so does he send his people her way? It's also been rumored that Richardson is Clinton's top choice for Vice-President--would he give her his people as an act of good will to secure that nomination? Or, will he concentrate on becoming president, and thus send his voters toward Obama/Edwards in attempt to stop Clinton from winning Iowa and thus halt her momentum going into New Hampshire, Michigan and Nevada, where she is leading? By doing the latter, he can create more parity at the top of the Democratic race, which leaves the door open to more high-finishes for Richardson.

No matter what he chooses, the Markos Zuniga, the founder of the Daily Kos, feels that "Richardson will get to play kingmaker."

Iraq is Richardson's main issue, and Edwards's views on the conflict come closest to matching Richardson's--Clinton's are far off. It'll be interesting to see what happens.

--Wyndam

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EDIT: The Daily Kos (different writer this time) agrees again re: Richardson's "kingmaker" status.

Richardson Picks up Key New Hampshire Endorsement

Bill Richardson received a belated Christmas present today: the endorsement of the Conway Daily Sun, a newspaper in the Mount Washington Valley area of New Hampshire.The full editorial is below--overall, it touches on his foreign affairs experience and political clout at home and abroad.

--Wyndam

Bill Richardson, the only heavy-weight in bout for Democratic nomination

Sen. Joe Biden, a contender for the Democratic presidential nomination, said in a recent interview that if it weren't for Iowa and New Hampshire, the candidate with the most money would always win.

Retail politics works. And it's not overstating it to say that because N.H. voters see, hear and meet the candidates in person, we are better informed than voters in the rest of country, who rely primarily on electronic media.

The result: N.H. voters often pick winners, and if not winners, candidates who, in hindsight, should have won. How much better off would the Republican Party-and the United States-be today if the rest of the country had followed New Hampshire eight years ago and elected

Sen. John McCain?

In 2000, the Sun was the only newspaper in New Hampshire to endorse McCain in the Republican primary. In 2004, we supported Gen. Wesley Clark over Sen. John Kerry in the Democratic primary. Granted, neither won, but we feel as good about those selections today as we did then.

We live in a world where Russia's leader may rewrite his country's constitution to maintain power, and where violence is often the political tool of choice, as in much of the Middle East. It is remarkable, and a testament to the strength of this country, that the next leader of the free world understands the real power of this country is in its people, and the path to the White House includes running the gauntlet at little N.H. newspapers like the Sun.

The editorial staff of the Sun is extraordinarily fortunate to have had exclusive access to the candidates. Without handlers at their sides or the national media butting in, most of the candidates have given our eight writers and editors an hour to engage in freewheeling question-and-answer exchanges.

Our staff takes seriously its bit part in selecting the next president. It is impossible to completely discount the "electability" factor and screen out mainstream media, but each of us weighs heavily what we observe in these editorial board interviews.

In our opinion, this year's Democrats are stronger than we've ever seen, and out of three that we believe could be good presidents, we endorse N.M. Gov. Bill Richardson.

It boils down to this: Sen. Barack Obama and former Sen. John Edwards are clearly highly principled people of integrity, and in another race the Sun would have supported one of them.

While Obama and Edwards have the big media budgets, neither has the experience of Richardson. And as for Hillary Clinton, this is what fringe candidate and straight-talking former Sen. Mike Gravel says.

"The Clintons should read the Constitution, eight years is all they get."

A handful of years as senator for each of them simply does not stack up to Richardson's powerful resume as a former congressman, energy secretary, U.N. ambassador, and now, governor of New Mexico.

Like our own Gov. John Lynch, Richardson is a big hit in his home state, where he is considered one of the nation's most environmentally-conscious governors. In New Mexico, he has raised the minimum wage, given all children under 5 access to health insurance, cut taxes and is pro-business.

On the national level, his experience negotiating with bad boys like Saddam Hussein, Fidel Castro and the North Koreans is world-renowned. Richardson gained the reputation as Pres. Bill Clinton's top international troubleshooter, and during the '90s humorously referred to himself as the "undersecretary of thugs." His success as a negotiator also earned him four nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize.

Richardson has heavyweight credentials for a heavyweight job; Obama, Edwards and Clinton, by comparison, have barely found their way into the ring.

The knock against Richardson is that he doesn't have the dynamic personality of Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton, although in person he's funny and engaging. Asked about this rap and to compare himself to Bill Clinton, Richardson says, "Yes, Clinton can electrify a room, but I can get it done." We're convinced he can, and we ask you to join us in voting for him.

Richardson is shafted by the media; America pays the price

In most of my discussions with Alex, Mike and other Richardson supporters, the media coverage of the governor's campaign is inevitably mentioned. We feel that it is paltry, and that the mainstream media has made a point of shining the spotlight solely on the front runners and practically never on the so-called second-tier candidates. And when they do shed the rare light on these candidates, they treat it as a novelty piece--look at me, I'm writing about an unknown politician! (Example: Mark Steyn of the National Review recently wrote a piece on Richardson's Pakistan plan. He introduces Richardson as: "Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico, who is apparently running for the Democratic presidential nomination...").

In the debates, Richardson and others of his ilk (Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, etc.) are shunned, as the key policy questions are aimed at Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards. Funny, since Richardson, Biden and Dodd are seasoned political veterans who have more experience in most fields individually than the "Big 3" have combined.

The media plays such a major role in elections and candidate visibility that anything less than ostensibly balanced coverage does a massive disservice to the American people--they are kept in the dark as the most qualified candidates go uncovered. Without decent attention, the race is essentially narrowed down to three candidates before the primaries even begin, since in the court of public opinion, only the three front runners, and a few "other" candidates exist. Richardson who?

But don't take my word for it: read this article by Brent Budowsky for the Huffington Post. He explains our displeasure.

--Wyndam

Richardson only ten points behind Obama in Iowa

A new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll is out. Here are the results, and keep in mind that Richardson's numbers had been lagging as of late, despite his insistence that his popularity was steadily growing. Apparently, the governor was right. Let's see if this trend continues.

John Edwards: 24%
Hillary Clinton: 23%
Barack Obama: 22%
Bill Richardson: 12%

--Wyndam

Why I'll vote for Bill

Barack Obama is a symbol of re-birth and interconnectedness – a beautiful thing for a country desperate to prove that the rest of the world can believe in it again.

Hillary Clinton is powerful, talented, connected, and capable – necessary for a country yearning for competence in the White House.

John Edwards is the manifestation of passionate resentment towards corporate America – cathartic for the multitudes disillusioned by our grossly inequal economy.

But...

I don't just want a president who can prove America's capacity for cultural understanding;

I don't just want a president who knows politics inside and out;

I don't just want a president who genuinely cares about the disaffected.

No,

I want it all. And I want someone who's proven it as an executive.

Bill Richardson for President. Don't compromise on anything.

--Alex

What can be gained by a third place finish in Iowa?

David Yepsen wrote a piece yesterday for the Des Moines Register in which he examines the benefits and disadvantages of a third place finish in Iowa.

Yepsen opines that in the Democratic race, a third place finish would be bad. The top three candidates (Barack Obama, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton) are all within a point or two of each other, based off recent polls. Eventually, the primary race with narrow itself down, and no one wants to be left behind. A third place finish for Clinton or Obama, who are perceived as the two front runners in a more general sense, would weaken their chances in the later primaries against each other, and such a result would be particularly disasturous for Edwards because, as Yepsen writes, "He's already seen as a bit of a one-trick pony who has a great campaign in Iowa and little elsewhere."

But Yepsen says that for the Republicans, finishing in third place could be a good thing. Instead of a "Big 3," there is currently only a "Big 2," Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney. Since both have double digit leads over the second-tier candidates, it's unlikely that either will finish third. That means that for Fred Thompson, Rudy Giuliani (who leads in general election polls), Ron Paul and John McCain, a third place finish solidifies them as the top candidate of the second-tier, and is a potential spring board to greater things in New Hampshire and further.

Yepsen describes Governor Richardson as such: "Polls also show there is so much distance between the top three and the bottom tier of Bill Richardson, Joe Biden and Chris Dodd that their hopes for a third-place showing would seem to be dimming."

This is a perfectly valid statement: in the recent polls, Richardson is at 5% in Iowa, over 20% behind the three front runners. And he has dipped off in recent weeks, so much so that he is no longer the clear top-of-the-second tier candidate: Joe Biden has begun to catch up to him.

To hear Richardson describe it though, 40% of Iowa voters are undecided with many make up their minds in the last week before the caucus. He also has a history of defying huge poll deficits.

So, although we may think we know the governor's rank, the truth is, we have no idea. And while Richardson will of course aim for victory, it is not likely--even second place would take a small miracle. A third place finish, though, is not entirely out of the question. It's a (very) long shot--even I can admit that. But it's not as hopeless as Yepsen and the rest of his ilk make it out to be. And let's just say it does happen. What then?

Obviously, it can not be a negative for the governor, who has stated several times that third place (or higher) finishes in the early caucuses are necessary for a successful campaign over the long term. If Richardson could pull a third place finish, then Yepsen's scenario for the Democrats gets rewritten, and it would almost resemble that of the Republicans.

But I think such a finish for Richardson would have a greater effect than that. Whereas one of the second tier Republicans (Thompson, Giuliani, etc.) is expected to finish third, Richardson is not. The momentum gained by the Republican third-place finisher would likely come at the expense of other second tier candidates (read: not that much) and Romney and Huckabee, who are the front runners in New Hampshire and Michigan as well, would continue to reign supreme over the Republican primary.

But if Richardson finished third, he could potentially pull support from one of the three current Democratic front runners, since one would have to finish fourth in order for Richardson to do so--such a result would throw their campaign in shambles, and all but end it. The voters he could siphon from them would be of much greater quantity than the Republican third-place finisher could pull. Even Edwards, whose numbers drop off significantly after Iowa, would give Richardson a large contingency of voters. A Clinton or Obama debacle in Iowa would be the best possible result of the governor.

Of course, no matter who falls to let Richardson in, it is all but guaranteed that some of their supporters will go to the two remaining front runners. But by establishing himself as a legitimate alternative in Iowa, Bill Richardson has an excellent chance to win over more voters and gain the momentum he needs going into New Hampshire and beyond.

--Wyndam

Course of Action

Here's another excellent piece by Michael Lipkin, a frequent contributor to The Richardson Campus.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I just finished reading Alex’s excellent summary of the last debate in Iowa and it reminded me how as we inch closer and closer to the primary, the impressions the candidates give become increasingly vital. The spin Edward’s campaign has been giving for the past few months is nowhere near as crucial as the message it sends out next week. And that means that as the days before January 3, float by, it becomes more difficult to respin an image. The campaigns become stuck, at a certain point, with the public image they’ve got.

Given that, you may begin to worry about the Des Moines Register throwing their supposedly hefty hat into Hilary’s ring in addition to her substantial lead in the polls over all candidates whose name does not begin with O. But things may be looking up for our favorite governor.

This week’s Economist writes that Clinton’s campaign is becoming less and less inevitable as we get closer to the primary. “The cracks”, as the magazine termed them, in Clinton’s “armor” include overusing and –estimating her husband’s political power, her poor debate showings—given how much she touted her fighting prowess—and her ludicrous use of Obama’s kindergarten papers. More and more people are discarding their opinion of her as a safe bet to win the nomination.

Granted the piece ties this dip in Clinton’s inevitability to Obama’s recent surge, especially with Oprah backing him (O² anyone? Anyone?), but I think this is good news for Richardson too.

The way I see it, Richardson’s plan for the next few weeks is to build enough momentum to launch himself into one of the top three spots—realistically speaking, the third. I’m not entirely sure why the top three is that much more important than the top four in our modern consciousness, but that’s the way it is. People love to ponder over the top three anything and news organizations love to discuss the top candidates. If Richardson is able to pull that far ahead in the race, the new attention he would get might be enough to win outright some states.

For a long time this seemed, to me at least, to be a pipe dream. With single digit polls this close to the end of the race, how could he possibly pull it together? But a lot of things have changed recently, and these changes have become more and more pronounced. Clinton, Obama and Edwards have become extremely close in the race and Richardson’s popularity has increased noticeably. If you’ve been checking out other political blogs and newspapers, Richardson is getting more mentions than ever, and not just as someone to turn to when they need a generic “second-tier” quote. This last piece about Clinton only further cements in my mind that she is bound to fall from the top spot, and that would provide an opportunity for the Democrats to reshuffle the standings.

Rooting for a dark horse candidate is never easy. It’s a lot of nail biting and a lot of hoping. But when good news like this comes along, some celebration, in equal measure with rededication to the task at hand, is in order.

Notes on the final Democratic debate before the Iowa caucus

I've read too much about "who won" each debate. Allow me to express my impressions of each candidate after what I watched the other night. Richardson was there, this time.

Biden: The guy has guts. He is pushing for a partition of Iraq, which may be our best policy option but is a tough sell. He's the only candidate who spoke honestly about how lost Iraq really is. He gets riled up when he sees injustice, and he speaks his mind when he disagrees with anyone. The man will not back down even from his friends. I worry that his passion may undermine his ability to work with a legislature.

Clinton: The line the press is making a big deal about really did hit me hard. She's all about the details – all about banging out policy after meeting with a bunch of people. But with her I still can't shake the feeling that she doesn't have a stronger conviction than simply wanting to do a good job at whichever job she does. That said, her push for healthcare back in the day showed plenty. In Clinton, I see a hard worker who's very willing to adapt to any political climate in order to be successful.

Dodd: His speech on his commitment to public service impressed me. His crisp explanations of the limitations on the President made good retorts to both Edwards' promises and Richardson's bragging. Also, Dodd is the only candidate who supports a carbon tax, which I find bold and admirable.

Edwards: All the Democrats were anti-trade, but Edwards took it to another level. He promised voters to fight all the bad guys, and this apparently has won him some support. I think his trade policies would undermine our economy's strength – for some reason, Edwards does not accept that we must lose some jobs in order to create new ones. But I do not doubt his conviction or his morals.

Obama: My favorite moment was the specificity with which he laid out his top priorities for the first year of his presidency. Right at the top of his list was reviewing, with his attorney general, every single executive order that W. Bush has made. The top is where that belongs. On foreign policy, he takes more flack than he deserves. Yet I was disappointed by his willingness to pander in regards to trade. Standing for change should mean more than standing with the Democratic Party's base on every issue.

Richardson: I usually laugh and hurt at how hard he has to try to smile, but this night was different. He's the only candidate, he finally showed, that's capable of not always taking himself seriously (and I'm not just talking about the weight joke). To me, his ability to subtly make fun of himself shows his confidence. His policy on Iraq is bold, clear, and unique among the candidates'. Energy (independence) and education (teacher pay) are his next highest priorities.

I wish with all my heart that Richardson hadn't pandered to all the anti-China guys, but no Democrat didn't. Richardson dwelled on human rights record longest, so of all things, I'll take that. I sure would have preferred he left out the currency "issue," but I can't have everything. We have real choices in front of us.

I think Joe Biden said it best: "This debate isn't about change or experience. It's about action."

You look at these guys and you tell me who's the most capable of taking meaningful positive action. I've made my choice, and I'm sticking with it. Bill Richardson for President.

--Alex

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Salon.com had this to say about Governor Richardson's peformance:

Former Democratic Rep. Dave Nagle, who is neutral in the presidential race, offered an intriguing theater review of the debate. "The second tier beat the first tier," Nagle said, boosting Richardson, Joe Biden and Chris Dodd...Richardson did deserve plaudits for what may have been his best debate performance of the long theatrical season...

Iowa Primary Poll Analysis

With less than a month until the Iowa primary, Bill Richardson is currently polling at fourth, behind Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards.

In Iowa, Richardson has been treading at around 8-10% for most of the campaign, while the three front runners hover around 20-30%. He hit a peak in late August at 14% in a Strategic Vision poll, but dropped off (he seemed to lose voters to Obama) and recent numbers have not been favorable: He was only at 4% in an American Research Group poll at the end of November. It should be noted, though, that in a Rasmussen poll taken the same week, he was at 10%. In the weeks since, his poll average has climbed back to the 10% mark.

Richardson has concentrated the majority of his efforts on the Iowa caucus, and has just finished a tour in which he spoke in all of Iowa's 99 counties. Iowa is Richardson's best chance to finish near the top in an early primary. Edwards has all but taken up residence in the state, and his popularity there is huge. This means that the vote at the top, which is usually split only between Obama and Clinton, is actually split three ways--Edwards is within six points of both Obama and Clinton. And so Richardson, even at 10%, is still only 15 percentage points behind the three front runners. If he makes a late push, he could finish third or higher. In an interview with the Quad City Times, Brian Kingsolver, a Democratic Party county chairman in Iowa, said, "He will surprise a lot of people on caucus night. I could see him pulling second (place) or third."

And indeed, polls can be deceiving. According to the same Quad City Times article, Richardson was a 30 point underdog when he first ran for congress in New Mexico--he ended up losing by a very slim margin. He has shown that, even though polls may not show it, he is an attractive candidate and a good campaigner who can make leaps on election night.

Additionally, his opponents may have inflated numbers: Obama, for example, may have to deal with what is known as the Bradley Effect--in essence, people feel guilty telling pollsters that they won't vote for a black candidate, even though they will go on to vote for their opposition. This leads to a spike in the polls that are not indicative of future performance in the actual election.

That's not to say that Richardson wouldn't like to be higher in the polls. But after canvasing Iowa and getting out his message, he could finish higher than predicted and build some momentum going into New Hampshire.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Richardson Campus got its first press coverage yesterday on "Blogging Bill," a site created by the staff of the Santa Fe Reporter to track Governor Richardson's campaign. Many thanks to everyone at the SFR for the mention. And yes, I'm due for a haircut.

--Wyndam