She Left Us Too Soon

Elizabeth Edwards died yesterday.   This lady was the epitome of class -- and she left us far too soon.

Democrats Are Coming Together

It looks like the process of the Democratic Party coming together behind presumptive nominee Barack Obama is progressing nicely. Bill Richardson climbed on board the Obama campaign early. Then Edwards and Gore made it known they will support and work for Obama.

Finally, last week, Hillary Clinton appeared with Obama in New Hampshire. She made it clear that she's a loyal Democrat, and will do whatever is necessary to put a Democrat in the White House in the coming election.

But even after all this, many in the mainstream media tried to make a big deal out of the fact that Bill Clinton was staying out of the limelight and letting Hillary and Barack heal the party. They tried to make it look like there was a rift between Obama and Bill Clinton that couldn't be healed.

That was nonsense, and yesterday those stories were put to rest. Obama and Clinton talked on the telephone, and from their later statements it sounds like any differences have been settled.

Obama spokesman Bill Burton said, "He has always believed that Bill Clinton is one of this nation's great leaders and most brilliant minds and looks forward to seeing him on the campaign trail and receiving his counsel."

Clinton spokesman Matt McKenna countered, "President Clinton continues to be impressed by Senator Obama and the campaign he has run, and looks forward to campaigning for and with him in the months to come."

Republicans might have hoped that Democrats would be left with a rift in the party after the extended nominating campaign, but that was just wishful thinking on their part. All real Democrats know the importance of putting a Democrat in the White House in the coming election, and they are coming together to do that.

I feel better about the coming election with each passing day.

Edwards Jumps Off The Fence

Many Obama supporters have been wondering who was going to tell Clinton that the nominating race is over -- now we know. Yesterday, in a huge Obama rally in Michigan, former presidential candidate John Edwards climbed down off that political fence and threw his support to Barack Obama.

This took whatever sting there was out of a rather unimportant loss for Obama in West Virginia on Tuesday night. While Clinton was celebrating her small-state victory, Obama gets what is probably the most important endorsement of the campaign.

In his endorsement speech, Edwards started out by extending an olive branch to the candidacy of Hillary Clinton. He urged Obama supporters to honor Clinton for her service to the Democratic Party. He is probably right about that, but it would be a lot easier to do if she would stop trying to play the "race card" and doing her best to tear down Barack Obama.

Then Edwards asked voters to tear down the walls separating Americans, especially the wall around Washington D.C. that separates Americans from their own government. He pointed out that the best way to do this is to send Barack Obama to live at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

I did not start this campaign as an Obama supporter. I supported Bill Richardson and then John Edwards until each dropped out of the race. I then climbed on the Obama bandwagon, and I'm glad I did. I think he'll make a great president. It makes me proud to see that both Richardson and Edwards have now joined me on that Obama bandwagon.

Adding insult to injury for Clinton, one of the most important women's rights groups, NARAL, also threw their support behind Obama's bid for the presidency yesterday. They recognized the fact that this campaign for the Democratic nomination is over, and it's time to come together behind the Democratic nominee -- Barack Obama.

I hope Clinton can find a graceful way to exit in the next two weeks. The only thing that could prevent a Democratic victory in November is if she plays the "sour grapes" game and splits the party.

Obama Routs Clinton In South Carolina

The South Carolina primary is over and Barack Obama scored a smashing victory. With 99% of the votes counted, Obama has 55% of that vote. He won in every age group except the over-65 group, and it looks like he appealed to voters in all racial groups. Clinton finished with 27% and Edwards had 18%.

I think Clinton probably expected to finish second in South Carolina, but I don't think she expected Obama to double the number of votes she received. There's no other way to put it -- this was an old-fashioned "butt-kicking". It's also the first time any of the candidates has gotten more than 50% of the votes in the multi-candidate field.

Edwards finished third, but at least he wasn't embarrassed and shut out like in Nevada. His 18% is probably enough to let him continue his campaign, and he did grab some of South Carolina's delegates.

At least prior to last night, the mainstream media would have us believe that Obama was struggling to stay up with supposed front-runner Clinton. But that's not how things are playing out in the primaries (at least so far). Obama has done better than expected in every one, except maybe New Hampshire, and even there he wound up with the most delegates.

In the four states where delegates have been awarded by vote or caucus, Obama has the lead. Obama has won 63 delegates, Clinton has won 47 delegates, and Edwards has won 23 delegates.

The delegate count is really the only thing that matters, and so far, 439 delegates have been decided, including superdelegates. It is only after you add the superdelegates that you see a lead for Clinton. In overall delegates so far, Clinton has 230, Obama has 152 and Edwards has 61. The superdelegates will lose a lot of the clout they currently show in a few days -- on Super Tuesday.

Clinton expects to regain her momentum on February 5th -- and she might. But I suspect that Obama may well out-perform mainstream media expectations again. I'm also not yet ready to count Edwards out.

It should be interesting, and there's even still a chance that the Texas and Ohio vote in March might actually mean something. That prospect is kind of exciting.

But once again, the biggest winner of the night was the Democratic Party. In 2004, around 200,000 people voted in the South Carolina Democratic primary. Last night, over 500,000 voted in that primary. In every state so far, people have been flocking in huge numbers to support Democratic candidates. If this trend continues, it could mean a very nice November for Democrats.

Was Nevada Really A Win For Clinton ?

Clinton wins in Nevada! That was the story (and headline) for all of the major media outlets yesterday. They made it sound like Barack Obama really took a beating, and left the state with his tail between his legs. Of course, that's not really what happened at all.

If all you care about is the "beauty contest" part of the Nevada caucuses (the number of caucus members that turned out for each candidate), then I guess you could say that Hillary Clinton won. She did have slightly more. But is that really the important thing that came out of the Nevada caucuses? No.

The only thing that matters is who won the most delegates to the national convention -- and that was a tie. Both Clinton and Obama won 14 delegates in Nevada yesterday. With Clinton being 24 points ahead in the polls there a month ago, I think the fact that he was able to split the delegates evenly made it a very good night for Obama.

While the major media outlets would have us believe that Clinton is doing better than Obama in the primaries, the number of delegates each has won in the primaries and caucuses show something different. Obama actually leads Clinton in the number of primary and caucus delegates by 38 to 36. Edwards has 18.

There was a big loser in Nevada though -- John Edwards. The polls showed him nearly equal to the other two in Nevada, but he was unable to win a single delegate as a result of the caucus. That is a devastating result for him. This makes South Carolina a very important primary for Edwards next week. He was born there and if he doesn't at least make a respectable showing, this could quickly become a two-person race.

It is only after adding in the super-delegates, that Clinton shows a lead in the delegate count. And most of these super-delegates picked their candidate weeks ago, before any primary or caucus had been held (and at that time, it looked like Clinton would easily win).

Counting both super-delegates and pledged (primary and caucus) delegates, there have still only been 386 delegates out of 4,049 total delegates that are in the camp of any candidate. There is still a long way to go and anything can happen. Here is how those 386 delegates stack up:

Clinton.......210

Obama.......123

Edwards.......52

Kucinich.......1

Gravel.......0

Thoughts About The Iowa Caucuses

Iowa didn't contain any real surprises on caucus night, but it did have some interesting results. My candidate, Bill Richardson, didn't do too well. The polls had him at about 12% and that seems to have been pretty accurate. In many precincts he came up just short of the 15% necessary to get a delegate.

So what did his delegates do? Most of them went to Obama, who turned out to be the night's big winner. I have to admit that Obama did better than I expected. Maybe America really is ready to elect a black president. That's something I've hoped for, but never expected to see in my lifetime. Obama's victory coming in a very white state (with only a 2.5% black population) gives me hope for America's future.

Edwards can also be considered a winner last night. Without spending anywhere near the money his major opponents spent, he finished second with 30% and edged out a victory over Clinton.

Clinton has to be considered the big loser of the night. She was in first place there a month ago. She spent heavily and campaigned hard in Iowa, only to finish in third place. After this result, Clinton really needs to do well in New Hampshire.

But the biggest winner of all last night was the Democratic Party. Iowa is generally considered to be a "red" state -- after all, it voted for Bush in 2004. But last night, they doubled the turnout in the Republican caucuses, and also doubled their own turnout of four years ago. It seems that Independents and new voters turned out for the Democrats in large numbers. If this holds true in other states, it could bode very well for a huge Democratic victory in November.

Having said all that, I realize that this was just one rather small state making their statement. There is a long way to go, and anything can happen. But it was an interesting start to the primary season.

Good For The Goose But Not The Gander

Until now, my only complaint about the Obama candidacy has been his lack of experience. I just thought he's making a run for the presidency a few years too soon. But this lastest incident has me wondering if he's not trying to hide something -- something he doesn't think voters would like or understand.

For a while now, Obama has been after Clinton to release all of her records for inspection. He has made it seem as though she's trying to hide something by not authorizing the release of the information (and maybe she is). She says the matter is out of her hands and the info can't be released until it has been gone through by the National Archives.

That is troubling enough, but now it looks like Obama himself is not wanting to release records. When he was asked to release his own political records, Obama said he doesn't have any records from his time as an Illinois state senator -- even though he only left that position in 2004.

Obama said recently, "I don't have - I don't maintain - a file of eight years of work in the state Senate because I didn't have the resources available to maintain those kinds of records. It could have been thrown out. I haven't been in the state Senate now for quite some time."

I find that very hard to believe. He doesn't have any records at all? It stretches the bounds of believability that a politician wouldn't keep any records -- especially records of his successes.

It would also be more believable if his campaign spokesman hadn't earlier this year asked someone to narrow their request for information on whether Obama had ever requested clemency for a convicted criminal, inferring that the request covered too much material.

I agree that Clinton should release her records, but so should Obama. After all, what's good for the goose is also good for the gander. It's rather disingenuous for Obama to ask for Clinton's records when he's unwilling to provide his own.

Meanwhile, John Edwards is authorizing the release of his own records. His campaign spokesman says, "Senator Edwards will release the records for his Senate office and is committed to getting this done as quickly as possible."

Personally, I am still supporting Bill Richardson, and if you haven't made up your mind, I urge you to consider supporting him. However, if you feel like you must choose between the three frontrunners right now, it would seem to me that Edwards is by far the best choice.

Clinton Accusation Is Weak Comeback

It looks like the Clinton campaign is grasping at straws in their attempt to defend themselves after screwing up in Iowa a few days ago. Before a speech in the Iowa town of Newton, Clinton aides told a college student to ask a specific question about the environment. They wanted the question asked and thought it would look better coming from a college student.

Both the student and the campaign admitted the student had been given the question by the campaign. This was a very stupid thing to do. If Clinton had something specific she wanted to say about the environment, she should have just said it in her speech. This gives the perception that the campaign was trying to "rig" the question-and-answer period.

Of course, John Edwards jumped right on that. He said Clinton was doing "what George Bush does. George Bush goes to events that are staged, where people are screened, where they're only allowed to ask questions if the questions are favorable to George Bush and set up in his favor".

Of course, he was right. The blunder did make the campaign look like they were trying to pull a Bush stunt. They should have just admitted their error, apologized and moved on. But it looks like someone in the campaign is not too smart. They had to throw a very weak and stupid accusation back at Edwards.

The Clinton campaign answered saying, "What George Bush does is attack Democrats and divide the country. Senator Edwards' campaign resembles that more and more every day". What a juvenile statement! It sounds more like the comeback of a third-grader than that of a professional campaign staff.

Did they really think their opponents wouldn't try to capitalize on their blunder? This is a campaign and opponents will try to further their own ambitions when you pull a bone-headed stunt like the Clinton campaign did.

I used to respect Hillary Clinton back when she wasn't ashamed of having liberal beliefs. But that day is long gone. I'm not sure what she believes in anymore, and the more she campaigns, the less I seem to like her. Her campaign's reaction to Edwards did nothing to help that perception.

I am beginning to believe she would be the weakest candidate the Democrats could nominate.

Obama & Edwards Are Wrong On Health Care

On Tuesday, Barak Obama released his plan to provide health care for all Americans. It turns out to be similar to the plan of John Edwards. Both want to extend private insurance coverage to all citizens with the government helping to pay for the insurance of the poor.

They have both come up with feasible plans to pay for this. Let me say, I like both men and think either would make a much better president than the one we currently have. But there is a serious flaw in both of their healthcare programs.

Both men seem to think that the only thing wrong with our current healthcare system is that over 45 million people do not have insurance coverage. That is only one of the problems with our system.

The biggest problem with our system is that our health determinations are in the hands of for-profit insurance companies, rather than medical professionals. It is the insurance company that decides whether you get the treatment you need or not. And the more coverage they deny, the more money they make.

Many of the middle-class think they have good coverage, until a really serious illness strikes and they find themselves financially devastated because their "good coverage" doesn't cover the medical procedures that they need.

The only way to solve the serious problems of our healthcare system, is to create a government run single-payer system that guarantees all citizens health care coverage -- not insurance coverage.

We must eliminate the for-profit insurance companies from our system. Just doing this one thing would drastically reduce the costs of the system and at the same time increase the health care that could be given.

We must also put health care decisions back into the hands of medical professionals. It is a serious mistake to let insurance executives make our medical decisions.

John Edwards Is Right About Iraq Funding Bill

Well, Bush has done it. He has vetoed the bill that would fully fund our troops in Iraq. Now he is trying to blame Democrats for his veto. I hope they don't let him get away with it. They gave him the money he requested. He's the one who vetoed the money appropriated.

He's unhappy that the money comes with strings attached. But that is Congress's responsibility. They are simply carrying out the wishes of a huge majority of the American people, who want to see this war end and American troops return home. On the other hand, Bush wants to continue an unwinnable and open-ended war.

There is talk of a possible compromise like putting benchmarks in instead of timetables. But what happens if the benchmarks are not met (and they won't be)? One Republican talks of putting in timetables which could be over-ruled by Bush. That is totally unacceptable! Timetables do no good if they can simply be ignored.

John Edwards is right on this issue, and because of it he has really risen in my estimation. I am still a Bill Richardson supporter, but Edwards is now running a close second. While others talk of compromise, Edwards says Democrats should send Bush the same bill again and again and again and again, until he either signs it or brings the troops home.

The Democrats have the high ground on this issue - both politically and morally. They should not compromise. They need to hold fast and demand that Bush start bringing our troops home - preferably immediately, but with a timetable if neccessary.

But I expect they'll probably knuckle-under and give Bush what he wants. They've been doing that for over six years now, and old habits are hard to break.

Texas 3rd In Donations For 2008 Presidential Race

Even without a home-grown candidate in the race, Texas is proving to be a contribution-rich place for donations to those in the race for the 2008 presidential nomination for both parties. So far, Texas is the third largest contributor.

In the recent past, Texas donations have leaned heavily in favor of Republican candidates, but that is not true this year. Republicans have raised about $4.1 million, but Democrats have nearly equaled that by raising $3.9 million.

This is how the top five states break down according to the Center for Responsive Politics:

California.............$19,794,009

New York.............$18,205,240

Texas....................$8,076,240

Florida.................$6,625,101

Illinois.................$5,860,058

There are four Democratic candidates that are doing much better than the rest of the field here in Texas according to the CRP. This is how Texas donations look for Democratic candidates:

John Edwards..........$1,495,075

Hilary Clinton..........$1,233,254

Barack Obama..........$695,289

Bill Richardson........$396,946

Christopher Dodd....$53,525

Joseph Biden............$35,647

Dennis Kucinich.......$2,480

Mike Gravel..............$135

As you may know, I am a Bill Richardson supporter. While I am gratified that he is in the top four and getting some good money from Texas, the West Texas numbers look especially good for Richardson. In the areas of Texas that know him best, Richardson is leading all candidates in donations.

This makes me think that Bill Richardson has a really good chance of making up a lot of ground when the debates start, and he is able to get his message out to a wider audience. Here are the combined totals from the West Texas cities of Abilene, Amarillo, El Paso, Fort Worth/Arlington, Lubbock and Midland/Odessa:

Bill Richardson........$127,996

John Edwards..........$50,880

Hilary Clinton..........$18,775

Barack Obama..........$10,514

Dennis Kucinich......$205