I apologize if this is not an appropriate diary,  but I've been searching all over this morning and can't find the answer to this one question that is bugging me.

When the Register projects that 45 percent of the participants in the Democratic Caucus will be no Democrats (40 percent Independents and 5 Percent Republicans),

Is that the opinion based upon their underlying poll of 800 registered voters,  or is that just an assumption that they are making and if so where does it come from.

I had always assumed that the pollsters kept a constant "screen" so at least comparisons of trends were valid,  but if they are changing their screen doesn't that make it an apples and oranges set of polls ?

As we head into the final week before the Iowa caucuses that may determine the 2008 Democratic Presidential nomination,  I have been continuing to wonder about the impact of race on the 2008 Presidential campaign.    Specifically is it racist or is it wrong (for any other reason) for Democrats to vote for Barack Obama because of his race, or for Democrats to oppose Barack Obama because they think his race will make him a weaker general election candidate.   I guess I might as well pose the third question in this group, is it racist to think about this topic.    I believe the answer to all three questions is no.

Please follow me below the fold if you are willing to consider this topic.

In 1968 I supported Bobby Kennedy for the Democratic Presidential Nomination. Many others active in the anti-war movement supported Eugene McCarthy for the nomination. None of us really cared very much about the fact that both Kennedy and McCarthy had been early supporters of the war in Vietnam. In 1964 McCarthy had actually voted for the infamous "Gulf of Tonkin resolution " that Lyndon Johnson had used in lieu of an actual authorization for the war and Bobby Kennedy had been spared the vote because he was not yet in the Senate.

One of my good friends has recently posited the argument that Barack Obama will be more "electable" in a general election then John Edwards because Obama did not vote for the Iraq War authorization and gave that lovely speech in advance of the war opposing the impending invasion. Obama himself and many of his supporters seemed to still think that he is entitled to the Democratic nomination (and likely to win) because he was right on the war at the specific point in history when all of the other now Democrats running for President (except for Kucinich) were wrong. I think they are all missing something that is fairly obvious.   It's a practical matter.

I just came back from four days volunteering for the Edwards campaign in Iowa,  and before I go any further I want to urge everyone who possibly can to take a few days or a week off and go help.    For better or worse,  the future of our country is being decided in Iowa on January 3.

I am convinced that the country is going to be in for a shock on January 4 when the results are announced.   My observations are based on four days of 1) telephoning random lists of registered Democrats to invite them to upcoming events during which calls I also talked to anyone willing about their current positions on the caucus candidates 2) canvassing door to door with lists of likely caucus participants (based on past participation I assume) and 3) talking to everyone I could at coffee shops, restaurants etc.

Conventional Wisdom is that when a one candidate attacks another in a multi candidate primary,  the beneficiary is often a third candidate.  An example of this is that when Dick Gephardt and Howard Dean started running negative ads in Iowa in 2004, the beneficiaries were John Kerry and John Edwards who maintained a positive image throughout the campaign.

Application of this conventional wisdom has led many to suspect that Barack Obama has applied a shrewd strategy by allowing John Edwards to take the lead in aggressively attacking front runner Hillary Clinton, assuming that the Iowa caucus participants will ultimately choose the candidate who stays positive.

I think though this CW,  is missing a critical piece.

Suffice it to say that (in my opinion) Obama's hour yesterday on Meet the Press was not his finest hour.

I had been very impressed with the video of his speech at the JJ dinner the night before so I was curious whether he would choose to maintain the tone of promising new policies (with specificity) to change America's direction or revert to his vague promise of a new tone (with generalities) that implies to me a style of compromising with the right wing which is just a new way to triangulate.   My two biggest frustrations with Obama as a Senator has been his consistent pattern of repeating Republican talking points at the outset of his explanation of his position and then his refusal to actually provide leadership on any of the key issues (Supreme Court nomination,  defunding the Iraq war etc.)

The transcript of the entire interview is available  here

For me, there are three sections of the interview that stand out.

The use of the word "crisis" regarding our social security system is important.  

The first dictionary definition of the word is : a stage in a sequence of events at which the trend of all future events, esp. for better or for worse, is determined; turning point.
A later medical definition is: the point in the course of a serious disease at which a decisive change occurs, leading either to recovery or to death.

The implication of the use of the word "crisis" to describe our social security situation is that it is a program that is going to be dead if some dramatic change isn't implemented and that the time for implementing that change (or losing the program) is imminent. It it is poll tested word that the Republicans who have wanted to kill the program since it's inception during the New Deal intentionally use in order to frighten Americans into accepting their proposals ("privitazation") that would actually cause a crisis and the end of social security.

So it is important for Progressives who believe in Social Security to not accept the Republican theme that there is a "crisis" regarding Social Security.

As the dust settles from this week's Democratic Presidential Debate, the accepted theme seems to be that Hillary Clinton had her worst performance (perhaps her only bad performance) of any of the debates so far but that she revealed a major weakness that the other campaigns will now try to exploit. I certainly agree with that.

There is uncertainty about whether John Edwards was slightly too agressive and risked offending Hillary supporters and Iowa caucus goers, or whether he demonstrated a trial lawyerly precision that Democrats will want in their nominee to be used against the Republicans. There is uncertainty about whether Barack Obama tried too hard to "be nice" and was too soft in his criticisms of Hillary to be the beneficiary of her inevitable fall, or whether he is perfectly positioned to benefit if Hillary falls and voters are offended by Edwards' agressiveness. We will presumably see the results in the polls over the next few weeks and a tweaking by the candidates of their presentations in the next debate (scheduled for November 15).

Polls seem somehow to be remarkably accurate measurements of somethings, but it is often unclear of exactly what is being measured.  A poll of 1000 residents of the United States asking who they think they will vote for in November, 2008 (more then a year away) obviously (to me at least) does not really reflect how the 2008 election will turn out.

Even a poll of 500 residents of Iowa taken in September 2007 doesn't really reflect how many of them will actually turn out to participate in the caucuses four months later, nor can it reflect what issues will be on their minds in four months when they will eventually decide for real, or who they will vote for if they do participate

With polls about an election a year away, obviously there are so many variables that will change and effect peoples perspective on the issues and the candidates. Polling potential caucus and or primary participants (in which generally less then 10 percent of those eligible will actually participate) is very speculative since you have to make guesses about which 10 percent of those eligible will actually participate.   None the less polls do measure something and the real science is trying to understand what is really being measured and what real information can be learned from the available polls.

As the presidential nomination campaigns move into high gear for the final four months from Labor Day to the Iowa caucuses, John Edwards has begun to articulate the "electability" argument that I have been suggesting for months now, would ultimately be a key factor in Democratic primary voters decisions.

(Please note I happen to strongly support Edwards for President because he will be the best President of any of the candidates running  - but think that electability will be a key reason many Democrats in early Primary states will ultimately give him their votes).

The latest Rassmussen Reports summary is out, and I am convinced that if these numbers (or anything similar) still exist in November and December of this year (now only four months away) the key to the Democratic nomination will rest on the strength of the fears that with Hillary Clinton as our nominee, she might lose a Presidential election a year later that should be ours rather easily.

I strongly support Edwards because he will be the best possible president of anyone currently running,  but this diary is focused to the reason why I think he is going to win the nomination.

The numbers are here and the favorables and unfavorables are particularly stark.

Up until now I have thought there would be little significant differences between the candidates (Edwards, Obama, Clinton)regarding policy goals regarding withdrawal from Iraq, implementation of universal health care, and committment to the environment and that the major difference would amount to stylistic leadership differences and the degree to which they would prioritize the accomplishment of each goal.

I am already a supporter of John Edwards simply because he seems to me to be stronger and more committed to implementing real universal health care, creating a more just society by ending poverty and has a leadership style that is striking a chord in me reminiscent of my heroes RFK and Paul Wellstone.

But that being said,  there is an important issue that may be emerging that will distinguish Edwards from Obama and Clinton in more direct ways then just timing and emphasis.   That is the recurrent efforts to resurrect the nuclear power industry.

People are still commenting on flubber's highly recommended diary about Walter Shapiro's

great article in salon today,  but there is one comment in the accompanying interview that I think is important enough to warrant a diary of it's own.

Towards the end of the interview Shapiro asked:  
Q: One of the things that I found interesting when you mentioned it today was the creation of 1 million public service jobs. Is this a new idea for you?
A. It isn't new today. Last summer when I laid out a whole agenda of about what to do about poverty, that was one of them. I called them "stepping-stone jobs," which is the same thing.

John Edwards was in Denver yesterday and yours truly had the opportunity to attend. Edwards spoke for about 45 minutes to a large crowd of students at the Metropolitan State College as part of his "college tour" that will take him next to Berkeley and UCLA. The theme of his speech (not unlike that of his entire campaign) was that "It is time to as Americans to do what is right for the country and for the world."

I have been watching many of Edwards' speeches and appearances over the past few months, so I have to say at the outset, there was very little new but to some degree I was actually impressed that Edwards can (and does) say the same things to a group of college students that he does to a hall of union workers such as "how about we make it easier not harder for workers to organize into unions".  

it was however the few new riffs that I heard that excited me the most.

I happened to be looking at Senate Bill 433 which is also known as the Iraq War De-Escalation Act of 2007 wondering what if anything actually makes the bill binding despite repeated statements making that claim by Senator Obama.

Section Three of the Act states that the level of forces in Iraq shall not exceed the level of forces in Iraq as of January 10, 2007 without specific authority in statute enacted by Congress after the date of enactment of the act.

Section Four (a.1) states that phased redeployment of the Armed Forces from Iraq shall begin no later then May 1, 2007.  

Section Four (a.2) also provides that redeployment shall be completed by March 31, 2008.

Those three clauses are acceptable goals for me but I have serious questions about the placement of those goals in a bill that appears to be in direct contradiction to the clear limitations on war powers stablished by the United States Constitution.

A lot has been written about the recent AFSCME sponsored presidential candiates forum in Carson City Nevada, including comments on Bill Richardson's appearance  (he has lost a lot of weight and looks very fit);  and Hillary's head bobbing presentation (am I the petty for being bothered by the sound of her voice and her mannerisms)  Tom Vilsack's final presidential campaign appearance (had he already given up ?) but there is one fairly substantive issue regarding Health Care that seems to have slipped by almost unnoticed.

The format of course was interesting (though I guess I'm old fashioned because I'd still prefer having the candidates ask each other questions and then directly rebut each other's answers) in that they all came on stage one at a time and gave a 3 minutes or so statement and then sat down for three questions asked by George Stephanopolis.   Candidates had to decide how best to use their opening 3 minutes and worst choice seemed to have been Vilsack's who ran through a list of all of the things he knew he was supposed to say but wouldn't have time for, and though amusing wasted what should have been precious time.

Many thank yous to marcy wheeler,   (Empty Wheel at firedoglake.com) for her live blogging of the Libby Trial closing arguments.

One thing struck me hard as I read through her posts today.   Fitzgerald's almost literary foreshadowing of what is coming next.

Normally in an long argument or a novel or play the author uses foreshadowing in the very early scenes to prepare the audience for what is coming next.    The very last paragraph of today's closing argument (the timing could not have been coincidental) contained powerful foreshadowing by Fitzgerald.

Tomorrow will be closing arguments in the Scooter Libby trial, and as a trial lawyer myself I am particularly looking forward to them and wish I could have a seat in the courtroom to watch and listen. Procedurally both sides get the same amount of time (I believe three hours total each) but the prosecution gets the privilige of splitting their time up and having first word and last argument. That advantage is huge.