I’ve been noticing an odd pattern here at DKos in regards to community members posing as US History professors with extensive knowledge of FDR – and ultimately engaging in historical revisionism.

FDR built consensus to pass the New Deal.  FDR did not demonize corporations.  FDR built a bi-partisan consensus for change.

Horse-hockey.

Clearly everyone knows these arguments have often been used in response to arguments about Senator’s Edwards and Obama’s differences in style/rhetoric when working for "change."

But clearly we all could use a refresher in FDR history.

In 2006 I worked countless hours as a volunteer for Baron Hill to win back his seat in Indiana's 9th Congressional District.

Baron is a "Blue Dog" Democrat, which often gets mischaracterized in the party.  What I saw in Baron's campaign was a commitment to true progressive principles in a solid model of focusing on the populist issues that working American want to discuss.  These include energy policy, environment, education; but most importantly Healthcare.

And a common part of Baron's stump speech was his plan for introducing a constitutional amendment calling for healthcare as a right for all Americans.

Because once we recognize healthcare as a right and not a privilege, the responsibility falls to the Congress to do something about it.

Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) did an interview with GQ magazine that has been released this month.

In the interview, Sen. Hagel states that the President initially did not plan on going through Congres for authority to attack Iraq (not suprising).  So Hagel states that himself, Dick Lugar (R-IN), and Joe Biden (D-DE) went to the White House to consult the President.

On the context of the original draft and Biden's role... on the flip...

Many have speculated that Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois will announce his candidacy for President of the United States on the Martin Luther King Jr. Day (observed), Monday.

It appears that Obama's growing staff is behind the placement of blog-ads as a precursor to a imminent announcement.

In the ABC News story on Kerry's gaffe theres a closing quote:

A Democratic congressman told ABC News Tuesday, "I guess Kerry wasn't content blowing 2004, now he wants to blow 2006, too."

Who is the Congressman?  I want to know - so I can slap him, then maybe find a primary opponent for him.

Baron Hill (D) has just released a new hard-hiting ad against "Millionare Mike" Sodrel (R) here in IN-09.

Instead of scary music, this one just makes you laugh.

Millionare Mike
(This is a WMV download - YouTube to be updated very soon)

Let the campaign know what you think in the comments.

A new SUSA poll (in coordination with WHAS-Louisville) has Baron Hill (D) remaining in the lead over incumbant Mike Sodrel (R).

SurveyUSA:
519 LV, +/-4.4% MOE

Hill (D): 47 (48)
Sodrel (R*): 43 (46)
Schansburg (L): 5 (2)

Its all in the GOTV effort...(flip)

Yesterday I wrote that a new poll had Ellsworth over Hostettler by 23 points for Indiana's 8th Congressional District.

It may have been an outlier, but I suggested that it holded some truth, suggesting the writing on the wall.

Indiana political sources seem to agree and now suggest Hostettler has read the latest polls as certain signs of defeat.

Article on flip...

The Evansville Courier and Press has released a poll with Brad Ellsworth leading incumbent John Hostettler by 23 points:

The poll of 626 likely voters in Indiana's 8th District shows Ellsworth with a commanding 55 percent of the vote and Hostettler with 32 percent. Undecided voters number 11 percent, and 2 percent refused to answer or said they would support neither candidate.

Hostettler campaign response is hysterical...

A new SurveyUSA poll has the Hill-Sodrel debate in a statistical tie:

Democrat challenger Baron Hill and Republican incumbent Mike Sodrel are neck-and-neck, according to a SurveyUSA poll conducted exclusively for WHAS-TV Louisville. 29 days to the 11/7/06 election, it's Hill 48%, Sodrel 46%. Hill gets 83% of Democrat votes. Sodrel gets 82% of Republican votes. Independents are split, 45% each. Conservatives support Sodrel 5:1. Liberals support Hill 11:1. Moderates go for Hill, 61% to 34%. Hill was elected to represent Indiana's 9th District in 1998, 2000, and 2002. Sodrel, who had lost to Hill 51-46 in 2002, captured the seat for the Republicans in 2004, defeating Hill by half a point.

This poll suggests the race is tightening among independant voters as we reach the close.  The recent Zogby poll had Hill ahead 46-38.

This race was decided by less than 3 votes per precinct in 2004 (only about 1400 votes).  Hill may well have been defeated by Bush coat-tail effects as well as dirty Republican tricks and distortions late in the campiagn.

This time, Baron is fighting back.  (On the flip)

The Republicans and their noise-machine are out in full force.  But it's clear they're not on target.  Theyre sliping left and right and letting their bias slip out.

Check out this AP piece on Dobson's reaction below.

The Indianapolis Star is reporting that the Indiana State Attorney's Generals Office (Republican AG) is filing suit against the Economic Freedom Fund for engaging in automated push polls against Democrat Baron Hill.

A new poll has gone out on the AP wire and was published online at the Fort Wayne News-Sentinel.

It finds former Representative Baron Hill (D) leading Rep. Mike Sodrel (R) 46-40, with 14 undecided.  Libertarian was not included in the poll.

Details on the flip.

An excellent little gem in Newsweek:

President Bush will move U.S. troops out of Iraq if the country descends into civil war, according to one senior Bush aide who declined to be named while talking about internal strategy. "If there's a full-blown civil war, the president isn't going to allow our forces to be caught in the crossfire," the aide said.

       The party dynamics for 2008, in regards to the presidential primary, are going to be unique this time around.  I think speculating this early is foolish as there is so much time and things change.  Though, I've begun to look at the political landscape and see patterns emerging that will help make better predictions.  Overall, one factor, I believe, will drive the emergence of major players in 2008 for the Democratic nomination:  The 2006 Midterm Elections

    How do these races influence 2008 dynamics and effect possible contenders?  I believe that following the results on November 2, 2006, Democratic primary voters are going to look around and say: "Who do we thank for our victories, and who do we blame for our shortcomings?"  Who are our Power-Players?

   No matter the nominee, the Democratic Party should win the White House in 2008.  Let's call it the "Perot Effect" similar to '92 and a flashback to Wallace in '68.

   The defining issue is Stem Cells.  But it includes the war and immigration and the courts.

Less than 20 million people watched the President's speech last night.  My guess is that the majority was made up of politcal junkies, including Bush non-supporters like ourselves.  My girlfriend watched "Friends" re-runs while I watched the Presidents speech.  Apparently many Americans did; as Chandler would say: "Could there be any less people watching that speech?"

What the President could have done is address the press from the White House the day before.  Ask them to preempt all other programming to carry his speech.  Make it clear to the press and the country that Iraq is important and its worth an honest discussion.

But he didn't -- because he doesn't get it.

Today's column in the Chicago Sun-Times by Andrew Greeley: Expect terrorists to bring war to us.

This column should be coming from a prominant Democrat in Congress, however it comes from a Catholic Priest in Chicago.