MoveOn.org announced a video competition to create a pro-Obama advertisement that could get aired on national television:

Today, we're launching an ad contest called "Obama in 30 Seconds." Anyone can make an ad about Obama between now and April 1. The public will vote on the best ads, and a panel of top artists, film professionals, and netroots heroes will pick a winner from among the finalists. Judges include Matt Damon, Ben Affleck, Naomi Wolf, Oliver Stone, John Legend, Donna Edwards, and Markos Moulitsas. We'll air the winning Obama ad nationally, and the winner will receive a gift certificate for $20,000 in video equipment.

So, what are you waiting for? Start filming.

I am an Obama supporter. Have been for over a year. I have, however, a great amount of respect for John Edwads. He based his entire campaign on being a proud strong progressive. On issues, I agreed with John more than Barack.

There is now some talk of an Edwards endorsement. He has met with both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama privately at his house. Meanwhile, the primary is likely coming to a close.

After a string of 11 Obama victories I doubt Edwards is even considering endorsing Senator Clinton.

But as a strong Obama supporter I have only this to say: John Edwards, don't endorse!

My logic is simple. John Edwards is being considered for attorney general in an Obama administration. If he endorses Barack, his appointment to such a post will look like a deal.

It's time for a new type of politics. A politics were people are judged and appointed based on their sheer talent, not cronyism or back-room deals. Regardless if such an appointment really is the result of a deal, an Edwards endorsement would inevitable lead to that perception.

So John, wait it out.

Earlier today, Chris Dodd became the first former 2008 Democratic presidential candidate to publicly take sides in the now heated two way primary contest by endorsing Sen. Barack Obama. In an email to supporters, Dodd called on Democrats to unite around Sen. Obama as their party's leader and described the Illinois Senator as a "uniquely qualified" candidate:

While both of our Party's remaining candidates are extremely talented and would make excellent commanders-in-chief, I am throwing my support to the candidate who I believe will open the most eyes to our shared Democratic vision.

I'm deeply proud to be the first 2008 Democratic presidential candidate to endorse Barack Obama. He is ready to be President. And I am ready to support him - to work with him and for him and help elect him our 44th President.

Put simply, I believe Barack Obama is uniquely qualified to help us face this housing crisis, create good jobs, strengthen America's families in this 21st century global economy, unite the world against terrorism and end the war in Iraq - and perhaps most importantly, call the American people to shared service and sacrifice. In this campaign, he has drawn millions of voters into politics for the first time in their lives and shown us that we are united by so much more than that which divides us.

That is why I believe the time has come for Democrats to come together as a Party and focus on winning the general election. The stakes are too high not to.

Dodd will be stumping for Obama across Ohio leading up to the Buckeye State's March 4th primary.

The need for Barack Obama to run a national campaign and compete outside of traditional "swing states" was adeptly outlined in a post made by kos earlier this week.

Hillary Clinton's campaign was always a swing-state 50+1 percent affair. She'd win in November, but by once again ignoring most of the country in favor of an elite few "purple" states.

Watching Obama build his incredible ground operation across the country, I can't help but hope that this newly built infrastructure stays in place through November.

We must build long term, in every state, toward a solid future progressive majority.

....

I want a presidential candidate who will eat into GOP popular vote advantages everywhere, even in states like Idaho and Alabama, helping cut into the GOP's vote tally. We must mobilize Democrats everywhere, in every state in our nation, to deliver the most dominant Democratic margin of victory in half a century.

The media thought Bush's 3 percent victory in 2004 was a "mandate". Let's mobilize Democrats from show them what a real mandate looks like.

Ever since Howard Dean was elected as chair of the Democratic National Committee, there has been a general consensus within the progressive movement that Democrats need to compete in red states if we want to build a strong and sustainable majority in American politics. Dean has made considerable progress by investing in state party infrastructure, but generally expansion into red states is off limits for presidential campaigns. In recent years, presidential campaigns have been so hotly contested that it would be unimaginable for a candidate to spend any effort competing in states outside of a few key "swing states." But 2008 could be different.

There has been a lot of talk about which states may become competitive during the general election because of Barack Obama's unique ability to expand the core constituencies that have previously defined the Democratic base. After reviewing the areas in which Obama has done particularly well in primaries so far I've come to the conclusion that two regions will hold significant potential when Obama is nominated: the West and the South. Obama has won in the Western states: Utah, Colorado, Idaho, and soon Montana. He has also won in the deep south, where high black turnout swept him to crushing victories: South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana, and soon Mississippi.

Barack Obama is on a roll. He has now won 10 states in a row and swept the entire month of February. It has now become the accepted consensus among political commentators and observers that Ohio and Texas are must wins for Hillary Clinton. If she loses either one, the nomination will be over, and all trends are moving in Obama's direction in Texas. But first, here are the results from this week's primaries:

Wisconsin	Votes	%	Del.	Reporting
Obama	646,007	58%	42	100% reporting
Clinton	452,795	41%	32

		Hawaii	Votes	%	Del.	Reporting
		Obama	28,347	76%	14	100% reporting
		Clinton	8,835	24%	6

On the heels these victories, Obama's poll numbers in Texas and Ohio are increasing dramatically. But, for the sake of this post, let's focus on Texas, where he has the best shot at a Hillary upset. Earlier this week, CNN reported a dead heat between Clinton and Obama in the lone star state:

A new CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll suggests the battle for the Democratic presidential nomination between Sens. Hillary Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois is a statistical dead heat in Texas, which holds primaries March 4.

In the survey, out Monday, 50 percent of likely Democratic primary voters support Clinton as their choice for the party's nominee, with 48 percent backing Obama.

But taking into account the poll's sampling error of plus or minus 4½ percentage points for Democratic respondents, the race is a virtual tie.

Senator Barack Obama canceled a campaign trip to Wisconsin today and flew to Chapel Hill, North Carolina, for a private meeting with John and Elizabeth Edwards. The meeting comes more than a week after Sen. Hillary Clinton also visited Chapel Hill to meet with Sen. Edwards, causing much speculation in the media over whether or not Edwards was leaning towards a possible Clinton endorsement.

Personally, I find it very hard to believe that Edwards will endorse Clinton because a number of his top donors in North Carolina and campaign advisers have gone for Obama. Former President of NARAL Pro-Choice America and an adviser to Sen. Edwards on womens issues, Kate Michelman, announced her support of Obama shortly before Super Tuesday. Another top adviser and friend of Edwards, Mudcat Saunders, said "I'm going to do everything in my power to make sure he does not endorse Hillary Clinton." View the full clip from MSNBC here:

Some news outlets have reported that Edwards is likely to hold out until a clear Democratic nominee emerges. However, Greg Sargent from Talking Points Memo reported last week that a key Edwards aid said "there's a greater than 50% chance he will endorse." I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

Round One:
Hillary attacks Obama for not debating her in Wisconsin. "maybe he would rather give speeches than answer questions." POW! hmm. Is this resentment for the poor reaction to her speeches? Of course not.

Round Two:
Barack responds by stating there have been 18 debates and 2 more coming. "It's the same old politics of phony charges and false attacks" BAM!

Round Three:
Hillary responds. "Barack Obama still refuses to debate in wisconson, now he's hiding behind false attack ads" SLAM! The ad then persists in attacking Barack falsely.

Excpect more tuffle soon. It aint over till its over!

Last night progressive Democratic challenger Donna Edwards beat 15 year incumbent corporate backed "Democrat" Al Wynn. Congressman Wynn was a symbol of everything that is wrong with Washington DC and moderate/conservative Democrats who time and time again have betrayed progressive values and voted with the Bush administration. Wynn voted for the war in Iraq, opposed net neutrality, voted for the Republican bankruptcy bill, and the list goes on.

Edwards had challenged Wynn for the Maryland 4th district congressional seat back in 2006, but failed after coming surprisingly close with very little national media attention. This time around, frustrated progressives from all over the country mobilized to back Edwards and the race received much more media attention as a classic establishment vs. anti-establishment fight.

What I find most interesting about this campaign was the incredible financial support that the Netroots gave Edwards in this race. Despite the fact that her race was a primary challenge against another Democrat, Edwards received over $400,000 on the progressive fundraising site ActBlue, more money than any other congressional candidate in the 2008 election cycle.

The video's celebrity appearances include: Will.i.am, Scarlett Johansson, John Legend, Herbie Hancock, Kate Walsh, Kareem Abdul Jabbar, Adam Rodriquez, Kelly Hu, Adam Rodriquez, Amber Valetta, and Nick Cannon.

Dems - Best Outcome
1. Edwards
2. Obama
3. Clinton
(I would rank Clinton much lower, but no one else has a chance at placing in the top 3)

This result would lead to a complete and utter free-for-all on the Democratic side (as if it isn't already). Clinton would be damaged, but all 3 would still be very much in the running.

Dems - Worst Outcome
1. Clinton
2. Edwards
3. Obama

This scenario would pretty much seal a Clinton victory. Edwards doesn't have much of a chance unless he get first, and Obama could still have a slim chance by placing second (if he then goes on to pull off NH). Placing third would kill his candidacy.

GOP - Best Outcome
1. Romney
2. Huckabee

Placing first in Iowa would give Romney a significant boost towards getting the Republican nod. We would so cream him in the general.

GOP - Worst Outcome
1. Huckabee
2. Romney

A Huckabee win in Iowa could really open things up for McCain in NH, which personally scares me shitless (and would hurt Obama due to the independents swinging over).

This from a recent CNN.com article:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Looking past the presidential nomination fight, Democratic leaders quietly fret that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton at the top of their 2008 ticket could hurt candidates at the bottom.

They say the former first lady may be too polarizing for much of the country. She could jeopardize the party's standing with independent voters and give Republicans who otherwise might stay home on Election Day a reason to vote, they worry.

In more than 40 interviews, Democratic candidates, consultants and party chairs from every region pointed to internal polls that give Clinton strikingly high unfavorable ratings in places with key congressional and state races.

...most Democratic leaders agreed to talk frankly about Clinton's political coattails only if they remained anonymous, fearing reprisals from the New York senator's campaign. They all expressed admiration for Clinton, and some said they would
publicly support her fierce fight for the nomination -- despite privately held fears.

The chairman of a Midwest state party called Clinton a nightmare for congressional and state legislative candidates.

I've been worried about this issue for quite some time now. I think that both Obama and Edwards (who can get away with being very progressive by being a Southerner) would give the '08 Democratic ticket a much better appeal in though races, and therefore increase the Democratic majorities in Congress by a much more substantial margin than Clinton would.

Last night at 8:51 PM the Edwards campaign reached their goal of raising
$9 million before the second quarter fundraising deadline at midnight.
I can't help but wonder how much of that money was raised because of
the Elizabeth vs. Ann incident, and if they would have made the $9 million mark without Coulter's help?

The Blogosphere has been somewhat slow this morning on reporting and discussing the second quarter numbers, but here are some estimates that I found through Huffington:

	2nd Quarter (estimates)	1st Quarter (actuals)
Barack Obama	$30 million	$25.8 million
Hillary Clinton	$27 million	$36 million
John Edwards	$9 million	$14 million
Bill Richardson	$7 million	$6.2 million

None of the campaigns have verified these numbers yet, but I think they
give us a pretty good idea of what effect the numbers will have. Obama
is definitley the big story this time around. Clinton stole the
spotlight in the 1st quarter by raiser the most, but that was because
the $10 million that she transfered from her last Senate race. Because
of Clinton's many contributions of $4,600 (only up to $2,300 of which
can be used in the primary), Obama actually raised more money for the
primary in the first quarter than Clinton, a detail that the MSM never
really picked up on much. This time will be different. Obama will come
out as the clear fundraising winner in both Democratic and Republican
field of candidates. We'll have to wait and see what kind of impact
this positive headline will have for the Obama camp, but political
trophies like these can often give candidates a significant boost.

Edwards reached his $9 million goal with a mere three hours remaining, and I
suspect raised more online than any of the others. None the less, his
numbers fall short of the $14 million that he raised in the first
quarter. His campaign will be pleased that they ended up with more than
Richardson, who had hope to surpass Edwards this quarter. Richardson's
$7 million will show some minor improvement from the first quarter, but
nowhere close the the break-away numbers that his camp had hoped for.

About three weeks ago, McCain had tumbled in the polls (he continues to) and Rudy Giulani's position as clear front runner in the '08 GOP race seemed fairly stable. Now his campaign frantically struggles to plug up the leaks that are springing up everywhere as the dam which held him in first place crumbles before them. Here are Giuliani's top 4 problems at the moment:

1. Fred Thompson
The inevitable entry of politician-turned-actor-turned-presidential-candidate Fred Thompson into 2008 race hurts every Republican candidate's chances, but espicially Giuliani because of his front runner status. The latest Rasmussen poll shows Thomson gaining a one point lead (28% to 27%) over Giuliani in a statistical dead heat. Thomson will announce his candidacy on July 4th.

2. Iraq Study Group
Apparently Giuliani was an original member of the Iraq Study Group, but quit after only 2 months, having failed to attend a single meeting (too busy giving million dollar speeches). The story has gotten considerable play in the MSM this past week, and Giuliani has now had to apologize for ever joining in the first place.

3. Staffer Indicted on Cocaine Charges
Last Tuesday, Giuliani's South Carolina campaign chairman, millionaire Thomas Ravenel, stepped down after being indicted on federal cocaine distribution charges. He is accused of buying less than 500 grams of cocaine to share of sell to friends in late 2005. The charges carry a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison.

4. Loyalty to Priest Accused of Molestation
Monsignor Alan Placa remains a paid consultant of Giuliani Partners, the law firm founded by the presidential candidate, despite being accused by a grand jury of sexually abusing children and coving up sexual abuse by priests. Placa has been a friend of Giuliani's since childhood, and continues to to be employed by him as a consultant.

When Joe Green arrived at the Obama event, I immediately recognized him as the co-founder of Project Agape. I'd first read about Green in a SF Chronicle article discussing the Facebook application Causes, which was created by Project Agape. Shortly after Obama arrived, Barak and I tracked down Joe and had a pretty interesting conversation about his projects and the potential on online youth fundraising.



Barak and I introduced ourselves as bloggers, and Joe mentioned the recent MyDD interview he did (which apparently they posted more of than he expected). I went on to tell him how excited I am about the things he's doing with Project Agape. He asked us what we thought of Causes, and I told him that besides a few minor glitches on Facebook it seemed to working very well so far. He said that they're working hard to iron out the bugs and that they'll be expanding Causes to include political candidates sometime in the next few weeks. In retrospect, I should have asked him about the controversy regarding the Obama camp creating their own Facebook app so suspiciously soon.

During the Obama fundraiser, which Ian and I recently attended, Obama gave a short but powerful speech. He covered a lot of issues including universal health care, education, and the war in Iraq. His underlying theme throughout the speech was the American people are more united then the media portrays us. And that with good leadership and common sense policies, America will be able to restore its former greatness. Here are some excerpts from his speech that stood out:

"We are not as divided as the pundits and the cable chatter fests would have us believe. The lines that have been drawn in many ways are artificial. They are a product of our politics as much as they are reflective of real divisions in this country."

"We cant have a politics that is small and timid and based on who's up and who's down, and who's in power and who's not. Because that approach to our politics, that very narrow self interested approach to politics, is not sufficient to meet the challenges that are big and longstanding "

"If we increased fuel efficiency on cars to 40-45 mpg we would have to import zero oil from the middle east. None."

"There is a sense that whats happened in this country has not simply been bad policy but that we have betrayed our truer selves"

Overall the speech gave me hope. (which seems to be one of Obama's main pilers in his campaign.) It also helped cement my belief that Barack would most likely make a good president. However, it did not convince me that he is our best candidate. What Obama has been missing lately is the fiery passion and ability to transcend politics that he exhibited during the democratic convention and earlier speeches. More on Obama to come...

This past Tuesday, Barak and I drove up to San Francisco for an invitation only $2,300 per person Barack Obama fundraiser in one of the nicest neighborhoods in the city. Of course, we couldn't afford the entry fee, but I happened to know the event host, Doug Hickey (whose home the event was at), who had invited us to come volunteer. For the first hour, I stood at the entrance and direct people towards the sign-in table, until I was relieved of volunteer duty and free to roam.



The event was incredible: brilliant view of the Golden Gate Bridge (as seen bellow), excellent catered food (which we took our fair share of), and many famous guests; including, Steve Westly, Craig from Craig's List, and Joe Green.



Obama himself arrived at around 6:30 surrounded by Secret Service. When he entered, Barak and I were some of the first people to get to shake his hand, because all of the volunteers had been positioned right by the door. After a few brief words with each of us, Obama proceeded to move around shaking the hand nearly every guest (probably around 200).





I'll be posting more on the event later, including our discussion with Joe Green, co-creator of the Facebook application Causes.

While watching the debate yesterday I was surprised that there were no answer limit clocks (with the standard green, yellow, red lights), and also curious about how much time the candidates were being given in comparison with each other. Fortunately, the good folks at the Dodd online team created a "Time Clock" for just that purpose.

Looking at these stats gives me a mixed reaction. On one hand, I'm not surprised that the 3 front runners got the most time, while Gravel (and his fringe attacks on the other Dems) got the least. But, it's a little unsettling to see the time disparity so strongly reflecting current national polls. Debates like these are supposed to be the one setting in which all candidates are given an equal chance to get their message across, yet that basic principle seems to have been violated last night. I hope the Dodd camp continues to track the time in future debates. I'm sure the blogosphere will be watching.

Yesterday, this post on Daily Kos about the first presidential debates caught my eye:

Just what did the good ol' MSNBC boys ask Democratic candidates compared to Republican candidates?

Here then are the first three questions asked in each debate.

Senator Clinton, your party's leader in the United States Senate, Harry Reid, recently said the war in Iraq is lost. A letter to today's USA Today calls his comments "treasonous" and says if General Patton were alive today, Patton would "wipe his boots" with Senator Reid. Do you agree with the position of your leader in the Senate?

In the NBC-Wall Street Journal poll, just 22 percent believe this country is on the right track. Mayor Giuliani, how do we get back to Ronald Reagan's morning in America?

Okay, in round one, a Democratic leader is declared a treasonous weakling based on a misquote and ravings from a LTE. A former Republican leader is seen as the goal to which we should aspire. Certainly "fair and balanced" so far.

Senator Obama, you have called this war in Iraq, quote, "dumb," close quote. How do you square that position with those who have sacrificed so much? And why have you voted for appropriations for it in the past?

Senator McCain, most of the public pessimism today has to do with Iraq. What would you need, as commander in chief, to win the war in Iraq?

In round two, a Democratic senator is shown to be a hypocrite who doesn't respect the troops, while a Republican senator is asked what he needs to dispel public gloom and seize victory. Nothing to see here.

Senator Edwards, you made a high-profile apology for your vote in favor of the Iraq war resolution. You have said, quote, "We need a leader who will be open and honest, who will tell the truth when they made a mistake." Was that not a direct shot at your opponent, Senator Clinton?

Governor Thompson, if you're commander in chief and you want to win this war in Iraq, what do you need to do to win it?

And in round three, Democrats are invited to wallow in their past mistakes and take pot shots at each other, while Republicans are given another opportunity to win, Win, WIN! All good. Look for more of that "liberal media bias" at work in tonight's debate, as Republican candidates are forced to field tough choices between whether they think mom, apple pie, and Jesus are merely great, or really, really super cool.

It is astounding that a major media outlet like MSNBC can get away with this kind of hackery. This also gives even more illegitimacy to Democrats for not participating in Fox debates, which certainly would have had even more biased questions (if that's possible).

So far the 2008 presidential primaries are producing more cash, more
media attention then any other primary in history. But things could get far more interesting. Chuck Hagel, the Republican senator from Nebraska, has expressed interest in running as an independent. Although Chuck Hagel has a consistent Conservative record, he breaks with his party on his support for a withdrawal from Iraq. If Chuck Hagel runs an effective independent presidential campaign, it could spell doom for the republican prospect for the White House. Since all of the candidates running for the Republican nomination claim staunch support for the Iraq war, Hagel would effectively split Conservatives who still support the war with those who don't. Leading the running Democrat to an easier victory.


There are now rumours that Michael  Bloomberg, the Republican mayor of New York City, is also considering a run as an independent. I'm afraid this would hurt the Democratic candidate far more than the republican. Even though Bloomberg is officially a republican, in many ways he has governed in an out right liberal manner. He has raised taxes numerous times to counter a deficit, he spearheaded the New York city ban on trans fat in restaurants, and he has recently proposed a plan to cut green house gases by planting a million trees and tolling cars in the city. He is also pro choice, pro gun-control, and pro gay-marriage. It shouldn't be surprising then that he was in fact a lifelong Democrat until he ran for mayor. Bloomberg is very appealing to Democrats who are sick of party insiders. I, for instance, would have trouble voting for Hillary Clinton over Bloomberg. He is also worth billions, meaning he could outspend any candidate on the field without raising a single dollar.

Keep your eyes open and your seat belts fastened for it could get hectic!

Here's a scenario that would be amusing. The Democrats put up Hillary.
The Republicans Giuliani. And Bloomberg runs as an independent.

A recent Boston Globe article touts the potent power of a growing 18-24 year old voting bloc:

Spurred into action by the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and the war in Iraq, youths 18 to 24 years of age have dramatically accelerated their participation in politics, both at the ballot box and on college campuses. After a steady decline in youth voting since the close of the Vietnam War, young voter participation increased from 36 percent in 2000 to 47 percent in 2004, representing a huge jump. Analysts also project that the final statistics from 2006 will show it to be a record year for youth voting in a midterm congressional election.

Not only are the statistics pointing towards greater youth turnout in 2008, but these voters are also more likely to bring a progressive mindset into the polling booth:

Further, the current crop of young voters is trending more Democratic -- unlike the previous generation of youth -- giving the eventual Democratic nominee a key advantage in the general election, according to two independent surveys of young voters.

"We've got the potential for this to be like SDS on steroids," said John Della Volpe , director of polling at Harvard University's Institute of Politics, referring to the Vietnam-era Students for a Democratic Society.

Young people are driven by a strong moralistic streak -- not so much on conservative social issues such as abortion and gay marriage, but on matters such as poverty, climate change, and the genocide in Darfur, according to polling by the Institute of Politics, which has conducted an ongoing survey of young people since 2000.

Young voters favor Senator Barack Obama of Illinois among the Democratic contenders and Giuliani among the GOP candidates, according to the Institute of Politics survey. College supporters of both men cited a mutual desire to elect someone they said was not mired down in Washington politics and who could unite the country.

While the jump in young voters stands to have a big impact on both parties' primaries, Democrats are well positioned to benefit from the trend in the general election. Unlike the previous generation -- the voting patterns of which largely mirrored the electorate as a whole -- the current crop of young voters is increasingly Democratic, according to a survey of "Generation Next" by the Pew Research Center.

"This is the first time since the 1970s that young people have voted significantly differently than the rest of the country," favoring Democrats more heavily than the rest of the electorate, said Andrew Kohut , director of the nonpartisan Pew center. "I think it's the times. It's the war."

While final numbers have not been released, early data on spikes in regional voting indicate that young voters played a pivotal role in electing Democratic senators Jim Webb of Virginia and Jon Tester of Montana in 2006, victories that helped give Democrats control of the US Senate, Della Volpe said.

By only focusing on the presidential race, the article fails to recognize a key aspect of the broader potential effect of a strong young voting bloc next year: another major congressional tidal wave for Dems.

That's right, 38 seconds into the ad there is a brief clip of me say "we the people" in my living room. Check it out...

After months of steady gains, Barack Obama has finally topped Hillary Clinton in the reputable Rasmussen national poll for the Democratic nomination.

	Clinton	Obama	Edwards
4/30	30%	32%	17%
4/23	32%	32%	17%
4/16	32%	30%	16%
4/09	34%	29%	15%

After watching the Democratic Debate on MSNBC yesterday I came to a few realizations. First, the debate cemented my sincere belief that, if elected, everyone on that stage would take the country into new and better directions. Second, the debate cemented my belief that most Democrats still need  to grow some (for lack of a better word) Balls. From Iraq, Health Care, Minimum Wage, and Climate Change, Americans are with us on the issues. Yet, we arent pushing those agendas nearly as much as we should.

In the last two weeks major Republican figures spouted grotesque absurdities. Former speaker of the house, Newt Gingrich, claimed last week that the tragic shooting at Virginia Tech was caused by liberalism. This week, presidential candidate and former Mayor of NYC Rudy Giuliani stated that a Democratic president would increase the chance of a second 9-11 type attack on the U.S. While Harry Reid was taking a beating for saying the war is lost, these disgraceful statements went largely un-scrutinized in the media and by Democrats. Why? The Republicans are a loud minority. Every chance they get, they attack, lie, and spin in order to make the Democrats look bad. Lately they have had to resort to making absurd statements because they have no issues on their side.

It's  time for Democrats to become a loud majority. Its time for us stress the issues that affect everyday Americans. It's time for us to underscore the inexcusable Republican failures over the last six years. And its time for us to fight back when we are attacked by revolting calculated lies. One of John Kerry' biggest mistakes was not effectively responding to ridiculous attacks. It is imperative that similar mistakes are not made in '08.

We have the issues on our side. We have the American people on our side. And now it's time for our candidates to have the guts to speak and defend the truth.

Recent Rasmussen polls show Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards defeating all Republican candidates when matched up against them one on one. Hillary and Obama are both virtually tied with Gulliani and McCain, while Edwards beats them by almost 10% each.

Not only does Edwards lead every Republican in the race, but he would win in a landslide against all but two of them. Check it out:

March 26-27, 2007

John Edwards (D)	47%
John McCain (R)	38%

John Edwards (D)	55%
Mitt Romney (R)	29%

April 4-5, 2007

Rudy Giuliani (R)	43%
John Edwards (D)	49%

Fred Thompson (R)	36%
John Edwards (D)	50%

These polls show significant progress since the Rasmussen polls taken in November, which had Edwards trailing Giuliani by 9% and McCain by 4%. Of course everyone knows that it's way too early is the game to take these match ups very seriously, but they are interesting indicators of current public opinion.

After the event MoveOn.org had their members vote on which candidate had the best plan for Iraq. Here are the results they released:

Sen. Barack Obama    28%

Sen. John Edwards    25%

Rep. Dennis Kucinich    17%

Gov. Bill Richardson    12%

Sen. Hillary Clinton    11%

Sen. Joe Biden    6%

Sen. Chris Dodd    1%

But, at the very bottom of email they send out MoveOn added this:

P.S. MoveOn members who watched the Town Hall at one of the parties voted differently from those who did not. Here are how the folks who attended the event ranked their choices:

Sen. John Edwards    25%

Gov. Bill Richardson    21%

Sen. Barack Obama    19%

Rep. Dennis Kucinich    15%

Sen. Joe Biden            10%

Sen. Hillary Clinton       7%

Sen. Chris Dodd           4%

Although Obama won the vote with a small 3% margin of overall MoveOn members, we have now way of telling how many of them actually listened to the forum and know the difference between each candidate's plan. The much more inportant number is John Edwards' 25% out of the people who attended the Town Hall.

But the most notable number in the second graph is the 21% for Bill Richardson. No doubt his strong showing is in part due to the great publicity from MyDD and Kos afterwards.

As I type, moveon.org and Air America are hosting an online forum on the topic of the war in Iraq with 7 of the Democratic candidates for president: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, Bill Richardson, Dennis Kucinich, Chris Dodd, and Joe Biden.

Edwards stressed congressional power to stop the war, and the importance of grassroots efforts. He quoted Martin Luther King, when King called for the end of the Vietnam war 40 years ago.

I missed most of Biden's time due to technical difficulties, but what I did hear him stress was a U.S. plan for keeping Iraq stable after our withdrawal.

Kucinich talked extensively about his plan for withdrawal from Iraq H.R. 1234. Going along with his other radical unrealistic stances, Kucinich said he would support a nuclear proliferation treaty which would eliminate all nuclear weapons worldwide. I was glad that he mentioned joining the International Criminal Court.

Gov. Richardson called for engaging Syria and other countries in the region in diplomacy on Iraq. Then he went on to tout his own plan for withdrawal, which he argued could be effectively achieved in just 8 months. When asked whether or not he supports congress cutting the funding for the war, Richardson said that he favors repealing authorization for the war under the War Powers Act, in order to avoid endless vetos.

Next up was Sen. Clinton, who spoke about her plan to begin troop deployment within 90 days and moving responsibility to the Iraqi government. Although I have to admit I'm not too hot for Hillary, she did answer the questions with a sharp clear speaking style that was better than I've heard from her in the past. I especially liked when she underlined the fact that Democrats were the ones who passed funding for the troops, while Bush is the one who is treatening to veto that funding. I couldn't help but notice that while Sen. Clinton was speaking, Moveon displayed some pretty unflattering photos of her on the online conference.

When Chris Dodd took his turn of questioning, he sounded much more genuine than some of the other other candidates whose responses had sounded very scripted. When asked about Iraq's oil being exploited by large corporations, Dodd wandered off topic a bit and spoke about the critical importance of American energy independence. He finished by speaking about improving America's image abroad by ending our human rights abuses.

The final candidate was Barack Obama, who began by reminding everyone of his initial opposition to the war. He went on to support engaging Syria and Iran in dialog. The critical question for Obama was when he was asked whether or not he would threaten to withhold funding for the war even if Bush vetoes the current bill. Obama's response was definitely a step back from his infamous "can't play chicken with the troops" line, as he called for a strong attempt to override an inevitable Bush veto.

A CNN poll released today shows John Edwards getting significant traction among New Hampshire Democrats in the race for the Democratic Nomination. The poll also shows Hillary Clinton bleeding support, while Obama's numbers remain steady since last month.

	March/April 2007	February 2007
Hillary Clinton	27	35
John Edwards	21	16
Barack Obama	20	21
Al Gore	11	8
Bill Richardson	4	1
Joe Biden	2	3
Tommy Thompson	2	2

The talk of former Senator and Law and Order star Fred Thompson joining the 2008 presidential race have moved from rumors to serious speculation. Bill Frist and a small handful of congressman are lobbying hard for Thompson to run. Poll numbers indicate that in the scattered and weak Republican field there is still ample room for another serious contender to emerge. After Thompson went on Fox News a few weeks ago and said he is considering a run, his poll number shot through the roof...

USA Today/ Gallup Poll, Republican Predential Primary:
(Republicans and Republican-leaning Independents)

	2007 Mar 23-25	2007 Mar 2-4	2007 Feb 9-11	2007 Jan 12-14
Rudy Giuliani	31	44	40	31
John McCain	22	20	24	27
Fred Thompson	12	N/A	N/A	N/A
Newt Gingrich	8	9	9	10
Sam Brownback	3	1	3	1
Mitt Romney	3	8	5	7
Tommy Thompson	2	2	2	2

If I were Fred Thompson looking at those numbers right now, I don't see how I couldn't give it a shot. My guess is he'll start making moves towards a run, start an exploratory committee, and formally announce sometime during the summer or fall.

In the first fundraising quarter
Clinton raised $26 Million
Obama raised $21 Million

This is huge!
Clinton was hoping to wallop Obama in the first quarter. Instead, Obama came very close to matching her in fundraising dough. Clinton came into the race thinking it would be an easy ride to the nomination.  Instead she is facing tougher and tougher competition from Obama and Edwards both of whose polls continue to rise at her expense.

This is just the beginning, but it is already apparent that this is going to be one of the most expensive and closely fought nominations in history.

UPDATE: Clinton - 26 Million
             Obama - 25 Million
             Edwards- 14 Million

Earlier today I made the first political contributions of my life (certainly not last). I gave a small amount to my two favorites for the '08 Democratic Primary:

$10.00 - Barack Obama
$10.00 - John Edwards

The first quarter fundraising deadline is approaching this weekend, and candidates are sending our a barrage of emails attempting to squeeze as much cash as possible out of their online supporters. I was originally just going to donate to Edwards, after I was deeply inspired my this campaign video. But, when I was that the Obama campaign has decided to only display the number of donations rather than cash amount raised, it convinced me to donate to them as well.

I'd like to point out that I chose to contribute just $10 for a reason. Of course I could have given much more, but what's important is that I made the donation not how much it was. The Obama camp understands that and that's why they're only displaying the number of donations, with the slogan: You Count. It's about people-powered politics, a movement born in the Dean campaign. In 2003-2004, Dean for America raised tens millions of dollars online from small donors. For the first time in American politics a major presidential campaign was funded not by corporate interests and the wealthy minority, but by average Americans who wanted to see real political change in their country. Dean realized that the only way to run a campaign that isn't beholden to special interests, is to run one financed by the people it aims to help. So: give early, give often, and give small.