Attention Dodd and Edwards Supporters: Contact the FEC by Noon Tomorrow

The FEC says that ActBlue is not a valid place to make donations that can be matched by Federal Funds. I think this is old fashioned, Republican thinking. Of course, it is legitimate. ActBlue is not a PAC for special interests or seeking special favors from Congress or the White House. It is an online donation distribution network to support candidates.

The Wall Street Journal picked up this important issue on their blog.

Both Chris Dodd and John Edwards have requested matching funds for public financing of the 2008 Primaries. It is their way to say we need to take the money out of politics, but they are not asking for extraordinary help.

You can help extend democracy by telling the FEC to get out of the 20st century and reverse its old fashioned thinking. We have until noon on Thursday, December 13th to have comments entered into the public record for consideration.

You can use this simple form on the John Edwards website, or you can e-mail FEC commission secretary, Mary Dove directly at MDove@fec.gov

Major progressive bloggers helped spread the word. Beginning the crusade at DailyKos on Monday, Markos explained the issue:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/10/14659/857/782/420274

Daily Kos lawyer and MyDD FP Adam B. chimed in with a draft of the public comments DailyKos, in conjunction with BlogPAC:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/12/122539/ 34/943/421130

Over at MyDD Jerome Armstrong, the "godfather" (Crashing the Gates co-author with Kos), also urged us to act:

http://mydd.com/story/2007/12/10/145619/71

Take action now. E-mail and crash the gates of the FEC.

Our democracy is at stake, and we don't want or need any more election unfairness. It's time the FEC acted on behalf of the public, not just for those politicians with fat wallets.

JRE Buzz Special Edition: The Son of a Millworker Takes on the Madam of Special Interests: Clinton

Critics lauded JRE and are falling over themselves about his performance at last night's debate. Here's a sampling:

TIME’s Mark Halperin Gave Edwards’ Debate Performance an “A”; Edwards “Came Across As Presidential, Optimistic and Patriotic — Essential for a Winner.” “Impressively he remained above the Clinton-Obama fray (no "look at me" antics) but swept in to best them while the media waited for the pair to duke it out. Calm and cool, he went after Clinton on (let's face it) character, and only occasionally seemed to be trying too hard. Hit both his Democratic and Republican targets with acute precision and impact. Appeared tough enough to perform well in a general election, with the kind of articulate passion he formerly demonstrated in the courtroom. Came across as presidential, optimistic and patriotic - essential for a winner.”

David Yepsen: “John Edwards Emerged As the Evening’s Most Effective and Articulate Challenger to Clinton.” In a blog post titled, “Johnny Be Good,” Yepsen wrote, “John Edwards emerged as the evening’s most effective and articulate challenger to Clinton. She turned in an uneven, sometimes waffling performance…Edwards came ready for the scrap and he helped his candidacy.” [Des Moines Register, 10/30/07]

New York Times: Obama “Was Frequently Overshadowed by Former Senator John Edwards.” “But for all the attention Mr. Obama drew to himself coming into the debate, he was frequently overshadowed by former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina, who — speaking more intensely and frequently — repeatedly challenged Mrs. Clinton’s credentials and credibility. ‘Senator Clinton says that she believes she can be the candidate for change, but she defends a broken system that’s corrupt in Washington, D.C.,’ Mr. Edwards said. ‘She says she will end the war, but she continues to say she’ll keep combat troops in Iraq and continue combat missions in Iraq. To me, that’s not ending the war; that’s the continuation of the war.’ He added, ‘I think the American people, given this historic moment in our country’s history, deserve a president of the United States that they know will tell them the truth, and won’t say one thing one time and something different at a different time.’” [New York Times, 10/31/07]

ABC’s George Stephanopoulos: “I Think It Was a Good Night for John Edwards. I Think One of His Best Nights of These Debates So Far.” George Stephanopoulos: “I think it was a good night for John Edwards. I think one of his best nights of these debates so far. He was very, very clear. He didn’t back down at all. He knew exactly what he wanted to say about Hillary Clinton, again, that she can’t bring about change.” [ABC, “Good Morning America,” 10/31/07]

CQ’s Craig Crawford: “I Thought It Was Edwards’ Best Performance So Far.” On MSNBC: Chris Matthews: “Who was ready to be her number one challenger between now and January?”… Craig Crawford: “I thought it was Edwards’ best performance so far.” Crawford later wrote, ““John Edwards was truly passionate about taking on Clinton, targeting her centrist views as ‘doubletalk’ and accusing her of falling in line with hawkish ‘neo-conservatives’ on Iran. Indeed, it was the former North Carolina senator’s most forceful debate performance so far.” [MSNBC, 10/30/07; 10/31/07]

The Nation’s Ari Melber: “John Edwards Had the Strongest Showing.” “John Edwards had the strongest showing, pounding Clinton as the status quo candidate. ‘If you believe that combat missions should be continued in Iraq [with no timetable],’ he said, ‘then Senator Clinton is your candidate.’ Edwards repeatedly presented himself as the most credible ‘change’ candidate.” [ “Edwards & Obama Confront Clinton In Dem Debate...” 10/30/07]

Daily Kos Readers Declared Edwards the Winner. According to the Daily Kos poll following the debate, “Who do you think won the debate,” John Edwards led the pack with 33% of the 8,588 votes cast, followed by Obama at 21%, and Clinton at 16%.

CBS’s Jeff Greenfield: “It Was Former Senator John Edwards Who Used the Toughest Language” On Iran. “But it was former Senator John Edwards who used the toughest language, at one point reacting with incredulity to her claim that a vote to brand the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as terrorists was a way of opposing the president.” [“The Early Show,” CBS, 10/31/07]

The Nation’s John Nichols (first reaction): Edwards “Ended the Night as the Candidate Who Had Done the Best Job of Defining Himself as the Alternative to Hillary Clinton.” “It wasn't just a fight about Iran, however. Edwards hit hard, and effectively, on every front. After detailing the front-runner's contributions from defense contractors and other corporate interests, he said. ‘If people want the status quo, Senator Clinton's your candidate.’ That's tough talk. Blunt talk. The sort of talk that Barack Obama seemed to suggest that he was going to deliver Tuesday night. But it came from John Edwards, who ended the night as the candidate who had done the best job of defining himself as the alternative to Hillary Clinton.” [h, 10/30/07]

Then Nichols added this later: “Edwards, Not Obama, Hits Clinton Hardest, Smartest.” “It was supposed to be the night Barack Obama took Hillary Clinton down. But, when all was said and done, Obama was a bystander…Where Obama was unfocused and ineffectual, John Edwards landed plenty of blows. The former senator from North Carolina began by suggesting that ‘it's fair’ to talk about essential differences between the candidates. Then he highlighted a big one. ‘(Clinton) says she'll stand up to George Bush,’ argued Edwards. "In fact, she voted to give George W. Bush the first step to war on Iran...’… It was a smart, at times intense dialogue…But Edwards owned the moment. Accusing Clinton of voting for an Iran resolution that read like it was ‘written literally by the neo-cons,’ the 2004 vice presidential nominee declared, ‘We need to stand up to this president. We need to make it absolutely clear that we will not let Bush, Cheney and this administration invade Iran.’”

NBC’s Tim Russert: “Edwards Was More Aggressive, More on the Offense than Barack Obama.”
Meredith Viera: “So did Edwards emerge?” Tim Russert: “I think Edwards emerged as the most aggressive candidate against Hillary Clinton…But clearly, looking at their performance last night, Edwards was more aggressive, more on the offense than Barack Obama.” [NBC’s “Today Show,” 10/31/07]

Marc Ambinder: “John Edwards’s Instruments of Persuasion Were Sharper and Louder.” “In this discordant symphony – ‘A Clintonian Lament’ -- John Edwards’s instruments of persuasion were sharper and louder; Barack Obama’s were more resonant and more subtle. In music terms, Edwards played the French horn; Obama played the violin. Or, as the New Yorker’s Ryan Lizza told me during a commercial break, ‘It’s the difference between someone who goes to law school and becomes a prosecutor and someone who goes to law school and becomes a law professor.’” [, 10/30/07]


ABC’s Rick Klein: “It's Rare That a Highlight Comes This Late in a Debate, But Edwards Picks up on That Inconsistency On Immigration.” “10:56 pm ET: It's rare that a highlight comes this late in a debate, but Edwards picks up on that inconsistency on immigration: ‘Sen. Clinton said two different things in the course of about two minutes.’ Obama: ‘I was confused on Sen. Clinton's answer.’ And Obama calls the Spitzer plan ‘the right idea.’”[ 10/30/07]

Then added Klein: “Edwards Still Seems Better, Though, at Finding Compelling Ways to Set Himself Apart.” “11:05 pm ET: Rick Klein wrapping it up -- Hillary Clinton gave a truly bad answer at the end, on illegal immigration, one that feeds the argument Obama and Edwards were making all night. Did Obama clear the bar he set for himself? Probably yes, but not with much room to spare. Edwards still seems better, though, at finding compelling ways to set himself apart. ” [10/30/07]

NBC's Domenico Montanaro: “Clinton Blurring the Lines AGAIN, Now on Illegal Immigrant Driver's Licenses… Edwards Called Her on It.” “Is Clinton blurring the lines AGAIN, now on illegal immigrant driver's licenses. She said the plan makes sense, but can't commit apparently. She said she didn't say she supports the plan, when Dodd said she did. Russert tried to pin her on it, and she obfuscated again. Edwards called her on it, evoking Bush-Cheney, saying Americans were tired of ‘double talk.’ Obama nodded and got called on and he got to chime in as well. Does this become a problem for her? Can she directly answer a question?” [ “Clinton having it both ways... again?” 10/30/07]

The Politico’s Ben Smith: “John Edwards Kept Up the Pressure Most Skillfully on Clinton… Drove His Point Home When She Refused to Say Whether She Supports” Spitzer’s Plan. “John Edwards kept up the pressure most skillfully on Clinton, putting his courtroom skills to use to build a case, at times mockingly, against the New York senator … Edwards drove his point home when she refused to say whether she supports New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s plan to give drivers’ licenses to illegal immigrants.” [, 10/31/07]

CNN’s Candy Crowley: Edwards “Stepped Up His Game.” Appearing on CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360, Candy Crowley said, “John Edwards, who has never been shy about going after the frontrunner, stepped up his game, questioning her candor.” [CNN’s “Anderson Cooper 360,” 10/30/07]

CQ’s Craig Crawford: “I thought Edwards made a good point when he said Republicans talk about you so much, because they want to run against you.” [MSNBC, 10/31/07]

Update: MJ Rosenberg at TPM declares Edwards Won.

"But, of the three heavyweights, I was most impressed by Edwards. He combined toughness and vision. Somehow I can imagine that Edwards' agenda for America would have a name like "New Deal" or "Great Society" in other words a rubric that suggests that his program for America would be larger than just his persona. I like that. I'm not so sure about the others.

I think Edwards will win Iowa and then we'll have a real race, one with an almost level playing field. It is not over. That is the main thing I learned last night.

Not over by a long shot."

I'm happy to hear the praise of the critics, but it's very clear none of them believed him when he said he has taken on the big interests before in the court rooms, and beat them at their game.

Madame Clinton, you, along the Re-thugs, represent those big interests and the double talk from the 1990's.

I would not underestimate the one who is the most authentic and will bring about positive change for our country: John Edwards. He's the son of a millworker.

Canvassing for Dems in Central Illinois

This morning I went to our local Farmer's Market to work at the Democratic Party booth. I had our local volunteer coordinator pencil me in last month, and I'm very glad I went. I only regret that I wish I had brought a camera in which the battery needed to be recharged, so I have no pictures to offer.

For BW readers who are not familiar with the folks in Central Illinois, and in particular, the IL-15 Congressional District, it is very similar to parts of Iowa. The major towns in the district, Bloomington-Normal, Champaign-Urbana, and Charleston are split between Dems and Repugs. But as most of it is rural, it is pretty conservative. Tim Johnson-R has won this seat 3 times and won handily in 2006 over our Dem challenger, David Gill (a very fine candidate who was for universal health care). In 2004, the presidential vote was very close, in which Kerry-Edwards edged out Bush-Cheney by less than 2% in my county, and in my particular precinct, Democratic candidate Carrie Melin won only by %1. That's how divided we are.

This morning was a beautiful day to get out and help out our fellow Democratic candidates as the sun had come out and the skies cleared, so I had to wear sunglasses. I worked between 9:30 and 11:30. The tent had two tables out, one for all of the locals who are running for primaries and voter registration forms, the other table was for all 9 Presidential candidates information on issues as well as buttons, bumper stickers, and a donation can. I brought a homemade sign to tape on the front that had John Edwards stickers and brought some lapel stickers, as well as a few CD's that I was able to take home from volunteering at John Edwards' booth at Yearly Kos.

In front of the "locals" table was a folded poster board in which water bottles (and slots on the screw caps) were under each candidate's name and picture. We had pennies for anyone who wanted to voice their support for any given candidate, and one could use pennies for all if undecided, which I thought was great. What I liked most though was visitors could also donate change or dollar bills to put inside the bottles for the candidate(s) they favored, and some did. It's a variation of a corn kernel poll in Iowa or a straw poll of sorts, except this will be done each week for the next couple of weeks as the booth continues to be there as long as the market is open.

One fellow who is the VP of the Dem County party had 4 or 5 petitions for state and local candidates to be on ballots. He had to be neutral in his stance since his job was to solicit signatures for the petitions, and he did ask for donations occasionally if the visitors wanted to take a bumper sticker or a button for a presidential candidate, in order to have materials pay for themselves. We got more donations than I expected, considering a few weeks ago, hardly anyone was picking up materials when I visited the booth briefly. And that was great because he explained how much it cost to keep the booth open during the year, and we were doing better than break-even.

Not planned at all, three volunteers happened to be Edwards supporters. One of them gave $20 to his campaign last week, knowing it was towards the end of the third quarter, and that's all she had to give, and I said, he appreciates anything we can do for him. Another fellow came by to collect signatures for petition for 4 folks to be DNC delegates for Edwards. He was successful in obtaining the signatures, in which his name was among them. He also mentioned he had seen Edwards recently at a private function in St. Louis last week. I asked why he liked Edwards and he said it was it was Edwards' advocacy for the working poor and poverty. What a surprise to me, as most the corporate media and the mainstream bloggers keep saying poverty is not an issue voters consider. Somehow the conversation turned to Rudy Guiliani and his fundraising and I said something about his going overseas to do it. He informed me that Michelle Obama had done the same in London recently. My jaw dropped.

I also commented to our group that Edwards was the only one with a Rural Recovery agenda, and that he understood our needs best since he was originally from a rural area. The group concurred.

One fellow, who said he voted Bush last time and would vote for a Dem this time, dropped by the booth to get more information on the candidates, and asked us about their positions, especially Edwards. Luckily, because of the blog sphere, I had no trouble answering any questions. He said he liked Edwards the most, but was looking at Dodd and Biden as well and would contact them for additional information.

Another woman dropped by to say that she liked Edwards because he was the most progressive who was electable (otherwise, she liked Kucinich too, but didn't think he could get elected). I asked her what else appealed his candidacy to her. She said he is honest. While she wished he would support gay marriage, he was honest in saying he wasn't ready to go there yet, but he was for civil unions and equal benefits for all same-sex couples. She wanted a woman president, but Clinton was not electable to her, and the election is more about getting our country back on track.

In fairness to the other front runners, one woman said she wanted a woman president no matter what, so she supported Clinton She also said Elizabeth Edwards should shut her mouth to the media. I responded that I was sorry to hear she didn't support Elizabeth speaking her mind, but I did. However, her mind was made up.

Oh, so I bet you are wondering who was faring the best in the "Penny drop" poll. Barack Obama led, but only so slightly, followed by Edwards, then Kucinich, then Richardson. Clinton was 5th, and you can guess the others. But FWIW, quite a few dropped pennies for more than one candidate. There were many undecideds, just as the race is tight in Iowa at the moment. That's cool, I thought. We have a strong slate of candidates, the best ever in my life time.

This and That

Sen. Chris Dodd of CT is running. And he's going to hang out in Iowa on Thursday. How exciting it is to have another NE politician who thinks s/he can win because most of the Dems are concentrated there.

Convincing Iowans will be very different. Perhaps he can will add to their issues debate and see where they think Dodd really stands. If Dodd is even a little bit disingenous, as some Iowans I have talked to think about Hilary, he's got Sisyphus' battles ahead of him.

Meantime, it's been rumored at Capitol Fax Mike Madigan, Speaker of the Illinois House of Reps, is trying to help Sen. Barak Obama along by attempting to move up the primary from the 3rd Tuesday in March to Feb 5. The Illinois State Board of Elections is where...Chicago. But he will have to convince Dems at the DNC Feb 1-3 meeting this can be done, considering it's been set in stone for some time where the first primaries and caucuses would be and when.

Well, sure it would help Obama in that the 3rd Tuesday is generally spring break and might help GOTV, especially in Chi-Town. But it might help other candidates too, such John Edwards, to get the young voter's attention. Edwards has the most techie organization for this race...and I think he can find ground booters too, especially some of us in downstate Illinois.

Meantime, you can catch JRE on Larry King Live tonight, and on Jay Leno too. It will be fun to see JRE's reaction to John McCain's doctrine on LKL.