PeterGlenshaw.com

What the Kennedy endorsement means in New Hampshire

There's been plenty o' news coverage about this week's announcement that leading members of the Kennedy family -- Congressman Patrick Kennedy, JFK's daughter Carolyn Kennedy, and most important, the senior Senator from Massachusetts, Senator Ted Kennedy -- endorse Barack Obama for President.

There's also coverage o'plenty about what this endorsement means for the 2008 Presidential race, and Obama's chances generally in his quest for the Democratic nomination in 2008.  Most pundits agree:  this is an historic moment, a true passing-of-the-torch from one of the leading families in American politics to a new generation and a new leader in Barack Obama.

I watched the rally on Monday on TV from my desk and like Chris Matthews of MSNBC, I found myself caught both in the emotion of the moment and its historical significance.  Twenty-eight years ago, Ted Kennedy led in 1980 the last great battle on behalf of liberal Democratic values in a Presidential campaign.  Through a series of strategic and tactical mistakes, the Kennedy campaign faltered in its quest for the Democratic nomination some 28 years ago.  Carter won the battle for that nomination, but lost badly in the general election. For the next 12 years, Democrats wandered in the wilderness, uncertain of the principles or values it ought to champion in a Presidential campaign.  Bill Clinton won in 1992 for many reasons, not the least of which was his willingness to trade the liberal values championed by Kennedy in 1980 for Republican-lite values that would triangulate the political opposition, and satisfy (at least temporarily) the great middle class of voters.

Since 1992, in both New Hampshire and throughout the rest of the United States, Democrats of all stripes have been caught in a debate about which strategy makes the most sense.  Do we abandon (or compromise) our core values in exchange for success in the heat of political expediency, or do we hold true to what we believe, and build a farm team of supporters based on the values we hold most important?

Politics is always about compromise, particularly democratic politics, so I see no problem with the process of accommodation itself.  The question is, do we compromise with our opponents or with ourselves?

That question has been a particularly sensitive one in New Hampshire for the last decade.  Beginning with the gubernatorial administration of Jeanne Shaheen and continuing thru the administration of the current Governor, John Lynch, liberally-minded Democrats in the Granite State have felt uncomfortably compromised both the politics and policy of our most senior Democratic leaders.

After all, as Governor, Jeanne Shaheen vetoed a bill which would have brought an income tax to New Hampshire (a tax which most liberal Democrats would be more fair to working class citizens in the Granite State).  John Lynch has supported liberal measures like civil unions and an increase in the minimum wage, but he has also caused many Democrats to question his values because of his championing of an amendment to the New Hampshire constitution that would significantly lessen the state's responsibility for providing an adequate education. Like Shaheen, Lynch also rejects the need for an income tax.  As a result, New Hampshire faces 21st century needs that must be financed primarily with 19th century agrarian policies such as the property tax.

Now comes the Kennedy endorsement, and it comes against the landscape of a growing divide within the New Hampshire Democratic Party.  In Sunday's Concord Monitor, Katy Burns outlines the divide in very stark and accurate terms: "Now good Democrats are muttering among themselves about how much longer they will put up with being mere tools of leaders' who do their best to stifle dissent."

The Clinton tactics in New Hamsphire, Nevada, and South Carolina have caused many loyal Democratic leaders and followers to question the wisdom of the Clintons.  Indeed, my observation (and the observation of others) is that an increasing number of liberally-minded Democrats believe want a leader who will reflect their values, and believe with each passing day that that Clintons no longer can offer that kind of leadership.  The same might also be said of Governor Shaheen and Lynch.

Yes, indeed.  A growing number of very loyal, committed, and hard-working Democrats are beginning to wonder if the Shaheen-Lynch perspective -- which really is a Clinton perspective -- has become, in fact, a recipe for disaster.

Yes, we are appreciative of their work-with-everyone approach. But which values do you abandon prematurely in that approach?

For liberal Democrats in New Hampshire, there is an increasingly realization that you can hold firm to your values and work constructively with Republicans who offer a different perspective to fashion policy that works for most Granite State citizens. 

But to compromise on the onset -- such as Governors Lynch and Shaheen have done with education or taxes -- accomplishes little.  It's the White Flag before the first shot is fired.

If you believe the national press, the Kennedy endorsement of Obama occurred, in part, because of the scorched-earth tactics employed by the Clinton campaign, who crassly and falsely suggested that Obama could not be trusted in terms of choice and race.  The first signs of these desperate campaign tactics occurred here in New Hampshire, and it's fair to say that an incredible number of Democratic leaders remain disgusted and deeply offended by the Clinton's tactics.  It's the kind of thing we would expect from Republicans, but hardly from fellow Democrats.

The next question is, what will happen at home?  What will happen to Granite State Democrats who dare to suggest that the map offered by Shaheen and Lynch is really a road to nowhere?  Will they face the same scorched-earth demonization we saw in the New Hampshire primary?

Stay tuned.

Barack Obama and the Birth of the (21st Century) Nation

South Carolina votes today.  Less than ten days later, 24 states hold primaries or caucuses on February 5th.  Nine additional states hold their primaries two weeks after the voter-fest of Feb 5th.  The race for the Democratic nominee is in high gear, and the road to victory appears to be longer and more complicated than anyone predicted.

(As an aside, let me give high praise to Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post for his willingness to grade and critique his punditry skills 50 days before the Iowa caucuses.  You’ll never see that kind of turn-the-mirror-on-me move from most political pundits.  These card-carrying members of the chattering class show a strong fondness for prediction, but shy away from accountability for the same, never mind their impact on voters. Three cheers for Cillizza.)

The race for the Democratic nomination is important, with story lines aplenty still to be told.  One story that this blog will examine in a few days concerns the growing dislike, maybe even hatred, of the Clintons by increasing numbers of Democrats.  It’s an astonishing development that could affect the nomination race still, but will no doubt have significant impact in the general election and beyond.

But as we round the bend in South Carolina, the race that really stands out concerns the effort by Obama and his supporters primarily to give birth to a 21st century American nation.  It’s not the first time a President, or a Presidential race, has pivoted on the birth of a new era.  Jefferson’s narrow victory in the election of 1800 led to the Louisiana Purchase, a game-changing move that vastly expanded the American landscape and gave birth to a century largely defined by the expansion and exploration of the frontier.

Teddy Roosevelt ushered in a 20th century American nation by setting aside American isolationism in foreign policy, busting the trusts which dominated American commerce in the late 19th century, introducing reforms that insured inspection of meat and the regulation of food & drugs, and instituting a worldwide conservation movement with the establishment of national parks.  His relative, Franklin Roosevelt, further accelerated American modernism in the 20th century, ultimately shaping the role of the United States as world leader and crafting an American government with a strong federal presence.

The 1960 Presidential campaign and John Kennedy himself both had an enormous impact on the remainder of the 20th century.  From complex, unforgiving foreign adventures in places like Vietnam to ambitious goals, such as putting a man on the moon or beginning to articulate the need for universal human rights, to the emergence of politician as celebrity or media figure, Kennedy’s policies and style largely defined the remaining 50 years of American life, both for good and ill. 

Fast forward to 2008, and we find the American nation in a similar position.  It’s apparent to even the most casual observer that significant change lies ahead.  We face a global economy in peril from the twin challenges of regional religious wars inflamed by terrorism and, at the same time, a crisis of expansion as the demands of energy and growth encounter a weakened environment.  Even as we live longer, and even as we anticipate dramatic advancements in our capacity to manage life in its most basic atomistic elements, it’s also increasingly clear that capacity to sustain and manage our own bodies faces a certain peril in terms of finance and management. 

In 2008, one senses the whole world waking up, not just the first world of the 20th century.  This whole, awakening world -- alive to religious & political beliefs, desiring growth and the fuel it requires, wanting to live longer and do more – is also a planet creaking under the strains from the previous century.  The systems built over the last century no longer seem adequate to the challenges of the 21st century.  In 2008, we need leadership that will set a chart for both the American nation and the rest of the awakening world.

In this uncertain landscape, one thing is very clear: the immediate past, and in particular the final years and decade of the 20th century American Presidency, hold little in the way of useful instruction. Consider how useless the administrations of Adams, McKinley, Harding, and Eisenhower were in providing instruction to their successors. Whatever benefits occurred in those administrations largely remained confined in those times.

So now we come to 2008 and this Presidential race, which over the past two months has been increasingly defined by the Clintons as a referendum on the 1990s.  Be it emphasis on policies of the late 20th century such as abortion, to the stylistic trappings of political celebrity (ohmigod, it’s Chelsea Clinton, silent as a Chesire cat), the Clintons have consistently tried to steer voters and the media away from the advancing horizon of  a 21st century America, and into the seemingly safe but ill-suited past of late 20th-century America.  One need only read Nigel Hamilton’s portrayal of Bill Clinton as the ultimate self-obsessed yuppie over-achiever to understand the historical forces at play in this race.

Ultimately, the Clintons are about comfort politics – a fattened, high-caloric combination of discourse and policies that temporarily satisfy, only to leave the citizen and the nation even more out-of-shape and ill-equipped for the demands which lie ahead.

Obama’s life and his policies, both past and present, point in a very different direction than the Clintons.  The unwritten future beckons with Obama.  Like other Presidential candidates before him in a precious historical moment, it’s easy to drawback from such a figure and forward cast of his shadow.  What might happen?  Surely, the cautious voter says, Obama ought to wait just a little while longer before attempting to lead us on such a journey.

Care for another helping of that Clinton comfort politics?

Interestingly, for young people, and indeed for much of the world, such concerns seem unnecessary.  It’s their lives, after all, which will largely take place in the awaiting 21st century, and for them, Obama represents the safer and smarter choice. 

Will voters in South Carolina feel the same way?  Or California?  Or New York? 

The outcome of specific primary elections rarely get decided on the basis of some over-arching historical thesis (fill-in-the-blank: All Politics Are…).  But in 2008, what happens in specific American states during the next 30-60 days may not matter.  Hope and change have been adopted as the guideposts for our future, and a leader identified in Barack Obama as the person most capable of guiding the American nation in the awakening world of the 21st century.

Hillary Clinton & the Children's Defense Fund

While much of the rest of the political world was watching the pugilistic debate last night between the Democratic candidates in South Carolina, I had the good fortune to listen to a speech at Dartmouth last night by Marion Wright Edelman, the founder of the Children's Defense Fund and former BFF of Hillary Clinton.

The speech was familiar, for those who have heard Mrs. Edelman before: statistics galore about the impoverished state of children in America.  Even today, 35 years after the founding of CDF, which is dedicated to improving the lives of the most needy and least influential in America, its work remains unfinished.  It's a sad, familiar litany, one too easily dismissed by cynics.  Even in my brief campaign for county office and my time as chair of the Lyme school board, the broad truth of Edelman's statistics are undeniable: more children suffer in America today than most people realize, and the social and financial impact of their suffering is both enormous and revolting.

What's interesting about last night's South Carolina debate and the Edelman speech at Dartmouth is that Hillary Clinton dared to cite her service after college with the Children's Defense Fund as a bona fide to her commitment to change.  Last night, here is how she described her work with the Children's Defense Fund:

"Well, I respect John's commitment to ending poverty. That's why, 35 years ago, when I graduated from law school, I didn't go to work for a law firm. I went to work for Marian Wright Edelman at the Children's Defense Fund, because ending poverty – particularly ending poverty for children, has been the central core cause of everything that I've been doing for 35 years."

Interesting.  Very interesting.

Because if you push even just a little bit, the story of Hillary Clinton and the Children's Defense Fund is far murky than candidate Clinton would like anyone in 2008 to understand.

First, it's important to realize the Hillary Clinton was more involved with the Children's Defense Fund than just serving as a newly minted college graduate.  In fact, from 1986 to 1992, Hillary Clinton (as she was known then) was the Chair of the Children's Defense Fund.  During this very same period, she also served on the board of Wal-Mart.

Moreover, when the Clinton's entered the White House in 1992, an early political appointee of Bill Clinton's was Marion Wright Edelman's husband, Peter Edelman.  Another Clinton political appointee, Donna Shalala (who later become the cabinet Secretary for Health & Human Services), also served as Chair of the Children's Defense Fund from 1992-93.

You might think -- hey, the Children's Defense Fund ought to score, right?  Their former Chair is the First Lady.  Their next Chair is the head of Health & Human Services.  The husband of the founder of Children's Defense Fund is the Assistant Secretary of Health & Human Services.  That organization and more importantly children throughout the United States ought to benefit tremendously....right?

Wrong.

The sad truth is both simple and maddening.  For Hillary Clinton, then and now, the Children's Defense Fund was mere window-dressing, an adornment meant to convey support for change without really being prepared to make deep sacrifices for it.

The Clintons and Edelmans were incredibly close, both personally and politically, during Clinton's first term, but it all came to end in 1996 when Clinton enthusiastically signed the so-called welfare reform bill of 1996.  In anger and shock over President Clinton's actions, Peter Edelman resigned his HHS post.

In an article published shortly thereafter in the Atlantic Monthly, Edleman provided detail after detail about why this bill was a mistake.  One sentence in particular haunts me from this essay published more than ten years ago:  "Nonetheless, the study showed, the bill would move 2.6 million people, including 1.1 million children, into poverty."

This, from a President whose wife served as Chair of the Children's Defense Fund. 

The sad fact is, Edelman was right.  I was initially sympathetic to Clinton's bill (work is good, right?), but a careful review suggests that Bill Clinton's welfare reform bill has been a disaster. One quick confirmation comes from reading Ross Gitell's 2007 study for the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston. Among other salient facts, the report says that over the last fifteen years (1989-2004), the bottom 40% of income earners in New England over the last fifteen years actually LOST money in terms of income.  At the same time, the top 20% of income earners gained 20% or more in terms of income. 

So thanks to a myriad of factors -- not the least of which was the removal of a social safety net as a result of the welfare reform bill -- the poor got poorer and the rich got richer.  And the children suffered most of all.  According to the Columbia University National Center for Children in Poverty, the number of children living in poverty grew by 1.2M from 2000 to 2006.  Put more starkly, "Nearly 13 million American children live in families with incomes below the federal poverty level, which is $20,650 a year for a family of four."

I don't know about you, but $20.6K per year for a family of four is way, WAY, WAY below what ANY family should endure. 

But that's what the welfare reform bill brought us, and that's part of the legacy of both Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton. 

So, the next time you hear Hillary Clinton proclaim that her service on the Children's Defense Fund qualifies her as an agent of change, think about the additional 1.2M children in poverty made possible by the Clinton welfare reform bill, the very same bill that caused the Peter Edelman to resign in protest more than ten years ago.

Change like the Clintons wrought is hardly what we need in 2008.

Obama Fights Back

There were a lot of striking moments at the New Hampshire Democrats 100 Club Dinner on the Friday night before the Granite State Primary -- the astonished looks among the NH Democratic elite as cheers for Obama overwhelmed the cheers for Clinton being prime among my memories -- but none so striking as Obama's patience in responding, carefully and thoughtfully, to every criticism made against him and the campaign.

One such criticism was, Oh, that Obama, he's all about Hope.  Yes, I am all about hope, said Obama.  In fact, he said, I am a hope-monger.  Not the kind of hope that is pie-in-the-sky, but the kind of hope you must have when your father leaves you at age two years, when you are raised by your grandparents, when you are not born into money but still manage to graduate from Ivy League schools.  Oh, and it's the kind of hope which leads you to enter a race for President against someone with the highest name recognition anywhere. 

It's the kind of hope that makes Obama believe, and I believe, our politics can be conducted differently.

Another criticism suggests, Oh, that Obama, he doesn't have Experience.  We need you to spend more time in Washington, where we can boil and stew and steam the hope out of you.  Only then will you be seasoned.  Only then will you be  experienced.   

But is that kind of Washington experience what we need now, Obama asked?  Spending time and getting money from health care lobbyists, as Senator Clinton has done, is not going to get us closer to health care reform.  It certainly did not produce the kind of vote we needed on the war in Iraq at its outset, or later in its oversight. 

Oh, that Obama, he is all words, goes another criticism.  Or, as one Democratic operative put it to me, he is a great first act.  Inspiring, but where's the action?  Charlie Peters of the Washington Monthly has detailed some pretty amazing action on the part of Obama in the Illinois legislature, certainly more legislation than anything Senator Clinton passed in her tepid  1+ plus terms as a US Senator. 

But let's assume the worst.  Let's say Obama is all talk.  I would aruge that his talk is far more inspiring than Senator Clinton's.  More importantly, it's the kind of talk which rallies people -- staffers, legislators, and citizens -- to do more and try harder than they ever thought possible.  It's the kind of talk you seek in a President.

Obama went even further.  He suggested this kind of talk suggests a comfort with oneself that Senator Clinton rarely displays.  It means you can talk to your political opponents or the enemies of your nation without worrying that somehow doing so will compromise your integrity.  Talk isn't cheap, it turns out. 

And now, Obama himself is underscoring that very point.  Since the New Hampshire primary concluded, it has been widely reported in the Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, and at Alternet that the Clinton campaign engaged in deceitful and outrageously misleading communication practices in the final 24 hours before voting began in the Granite State.  Between a mailer sent to every woman in New Hampshire, and an email signed by leading female Democratic politicians, a deliberate and coordinated effort was made to falsely accuse Obama of being unreliable on abortion rights. 

Fortunately, what happened in New Hampshire has not stayed in New Hampshire.  It's been taken to Las Vegas and the rest of Nevada.  Obama has fought back with his own mailer that has been sent widely in Nevada.  It not only accurately refutes the false New Hampshire claims made against him about choice, but it also suggests that by doing so, Clinton has begun to lose support in Nevada by Democrats who are disgusted by her dirty campaign tactics.

You can see a PDF of the mailer here, but here's the important text.  It comes from Lorna Brett, a former Nevada Clinton donor and supporter who now supports Obama.

"I was a strong supporter of Senator Clinton.  I gave her the maximum contribution and she even attended a fundraiser in my home several years ago.  But I was disappointed that Hillary Clinton would launch misleading attacks on Barack Obama and his unimpeachable record on a woman’s right to choose. As the past president of  Chicago NOW, I worked directly with Senator Obama on strategies to help pro-choice legislators defeat the tactics of the right wing. It’s a shame that Senator  Clinton would try to use those pro-choice votes against Barack Obama now.  I have switched my support to Barack Obama  because I know the truth. I cannot be a part of  that kind of deceptive politics."

Nevada citizens caucus tomorrow.  By all accounts the race is close, with the latest polls showing a slight Clinton lead.  In New Hampshire a new kiss-your-sister email is being sent to Democrats, asking Democrats to come together by praising Obama for his pro-choice record while also defending the mailing as fair in rough-and-tumble of primary politics.

And yet, isn't it ironic?  The Clintons and their supporters continue to practice the very kind of politics which Obama and his supporters wants to see fade into the sunset.

Who will prevail? 

I don't know, but I can say this: some of us good Democrats are getting very sick and tired of the Clintons.  And like Barack Obama, we are inclined to fight back. 

Tears to Fears

Everyone knows Hillary cried (or something like it) for the first time in 35+ years of public life last Monday afternoon, in the heat of press coverage on the final day of campaigning before the New Hampshire. 

After spending nearly a year in the Granite State, that sniffle became the most widely reported moment of her campaign. As Jodi Kantor in the New York Times wrote, what was remarkable about that moment was "...not that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton teared up. It was all the times she did not."

  Less widely reported on that same day was the fear-inducing mailer Hillary Clinton sent to every woman in New Hampshire.  I’ve kept most mailers I got from every Presidential candidate this year, and that mailer was absolutely the worst. 

In the mailer, Hillary claims that Barack Obama is not a leader who will "stand up and protect [a women's right to choice]."

HIllary Clinton claimed that Obama could not be counted onto to support a woman's right to choice because he had voted "present" on a few abortion-oriented bills while in the Illinois legislature.

Never mind that Obama has a 100% approval rating from Planned Parenthood in Illinois.  Never mind that Planned Parenthood asked him to vote present on those bills.  Never mind that Obama's votes have been reported again and again.  Never mind that the President & CEO of the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council said, "the poor guy is getting all this heat for a strategy we, the pro-choice community, did," said Pam Sutherland.

The mailer was a disgusting smear job from Hillary Clinton and her New Hampshire staff.  It was meant to cast doubt in the minds of undecided pro-choice women voters on the last day of the campaign by relying on false and misleading information which had been widely discredited for months.

And you thought Hillary Clinton was going to bring change?

As Arianna Huffington put it just before the election, the Clinton camp tried every strategy possible to win — including tears and fears.  That hack piece underscores why people want Obama.  Smear pieces like Clinton’s represent the politics that have nothing to do with change or making the country better.  Iraq, Energy, Health Care, the Environment, Education....none of it matters.

Instead, it’s all about the Clintons clinging desperately to what they perceive as their birthright. 

Has Hillary Clinton no sense of shame?

The ABC Vote in the 2008 NH Primary

First, let me apologize for the radio (er, blog) silence over the past few days.  As you might expect with the NH primary upon us, I had a lot to share.  A whole lot.  But, as a result of some problems involving the site (all my fault), I was not able to post for the past several days.  So, look for a whole lot of postings over the next few days.  I gotta backlog of thoughts to share.

It's late as I write, so let me start with the obvious and simple observation: namely, the ABC vote in the New Hampshire primary of 2008.  The ABC vote?

Anybody But Clinton.....

Looking at the aggregate vote from the Granite State yesterday, it's clear that 60% of New Hampshire voters who took a Democratic ballot wanted someone other than the Junior Senator from New York.  The anticipated withdrawal of Governor Bill Richardson provide an opportunity for that ABC vote to materialize more clearly. It's my guess that it will coalesce around a single candidate, and my guess is that Obama will be the main beneficiary of the ABC vote in the coming weeks.

The ABC vote is the one big, big issue that the Clinton camp has yet to address seriously.   Husband Bill never got beyond the low 40s in terms of support in either of his Presidential campaigns, and the early evidence suggests that Hillary can only count on similar anemic level of support, too.  All of which puts pressure now of John Edwards to reconsider his 50-state campaign strategy.  The strategy memo might read, "go ahead and compete in Nevada and South Carolina (the latter which you won in 2004), but if neither state can advance your chances, look for plenty of pundits and insiders to ask you, this thoughtful, passionate candidate from North Carolina, to step aside."

The fact is, at least half or more of the Democrat voters simply do not like Senator Clinton and do not want her to become President.  I count myself among those voters and the intensity of their feelings is surprising, real, and not to be dismissed.  Moreover, it's clear in the 24 hours after New Hampshire, that Barack Obama is no Howard Dean. He's already earned the endorsement of the two biggest unions in Nevada and seems well-positioned in South Carolina, too.  Barack Obama is the real deal, and this race is far closer than anyone realizes. 

It's also clear that a generational gap has emerged in the Democratic Party in 2008.  The Old Guarde is backing the nostalgic choice, Senator Clinton.  But the New Guarde -- who are comprised of young voters, Dean supporters, Silicon Valley & Wall Street leaders, and true Independents in the Democratic Party -- are going in a different direction.  There is a lot more to this split than meets the eye.  It's akin to the split in the Republican Party in the late 1970s when Reagan and the Goldwater-inspired conservatives took back their party from the Washington establishment.

The next few weeks, and perhaps even months, will be fascinating.  Hang onto your hat!

Turn the Page

Chris Dodd ran a terrific campaign for the Presidency.  I was honored and privileged to support his candidacy, and am thrilled that he intends to continue the fight against the number one priority in 2008 for the Bush administration, retroactive immunity for telecommunications.  Dodd fought hard in Iowa and throughout the country during the past year, but as last night's Iowa caucus showed, the votes never came together.

One of the things I liked about Senator Dodd immensely was his willingness to speak directly and clearly about an issue.  Faced with last night's results, Dodd did not shirk from directly addressing the consequences of the Iowa caucus.  He has decided to leave the race and won't be competing in New Hampshire or any other states.  It's the right call, made swiftly and with only a hint of bittersweetness.  Dodd had what it took to be President, but in 2008 it was not to be.

So, it's time to turn the page.  Readers of this blog know that my two top choices in July 2007 were Senator Dodd and Senator Obama. Watching Senator Obama over the past two-plus months has been a real joy.  Beginning with the SNL appearance in late October, and continuing through the month of December (the highlight being his incredible speech at the Jefferson-Jackson dinner and the unprecedented kick-out-the-jams tour with Oprah), Obama has done an outstanding job of campaigning.  In the crunch, this relative newcomer showed a maturity and confidence that not only led to his victory in Iowa last night, but suggests -- very, very strongly -- that he has what it takes to be a great President.

Writing in today's Washington Post, Charlie Peters -- the dean of independent Washington journalists -- comments in unusually favorable terms about Senator Obama.  Peters details how Obama worked effectively in the Illinois legislature to pass very complex and difficult legislation (such as video-taping police questioning) that faced enormous resistance.  As one Republican senator said it, Obama has an ability "to deal with extremely complex issues, to reach across the aisle and to deal with diverse people."

Over the next few days, I will share more about why I think Senator Obama deserves our support in New Hampshire to be the Democratic nominee. 

But for now, on this cold and wintry Granite State morning, I'm pleased to turn the page and endorse Senator Obama.

One is the Loneliest Number

'Tis the night before the Iowa caucuses, and all through the land comes the chatter of pundits, pontificating on who will win tomorrow and what will it matter.

My daughter, Hannah, now in the 7th grade, explained the significance this way tonight at the Glenshaw dinner table:  it's like a snowball begins in Iowa and New Hampshire, and whoever wins there begins to build momentum throughout the campaign.

Indeed, for all of the speculative reporting and punditry over the past 12 months, by this time tomorrow night, it is certainly true there will be the first incline of actual results.  Five days later, the nation will turn its eyes to the Granite State where, instead of caucusing at night, voters will have a full 12-hours to cast a private ballot for one of the Democratic or Republican presidential candidates.

But is either result of the Iowa caucus or the New Hampshire primary really the right measure of where we stand?

Right now, my guy, Chris Dodd -- who just earned the endorsement of the second co-founder of Blue Hampshire, Mike Caufield -- is polling at just two percent of the Iowa electorate.  This is double his position most of the year (Dodd has been at one percent for months in most polls in New Hampshire and Iowa).  And the implications of his position are clear.  As Senator Dodd himself put it yesterday, if he gets anything less than 4th place in Iowa tomorrow night, there's no ticket going forward in this campaign.

Which is too bad.  Maybe, way too bad.  Because the news today out of Washington is that the Number One goal for George Bush in the coming year, his last year in the Presidency, is to enact the very legislation on which Chris Dodd, by himself only, has successfully fought the President in 2007: a dramatic and draconian law which would permit telecommunication companies to release private information to the government without judicial authority.

No less an authority than Dan Froomkin of The Washington Post called this decision on the Bush administration "a historic battle over the future of the country as a surveillance state."

I'm sorry, which country? 

Oh.  Our country. 

The US of A. 

A surveillance state?

Froomkin further stated, "Senate Democrats were poised to once again give Bush everything he wanted last month, until the threat of a filibuster by Democratic presidential candidate Chris Dodd led Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid to postpone a vote until late January."

So, here we are on the precipice of the snowball which comes from the Iowa caucuses, the New Hampshire primary, and a few other key early states (Nevada, South Carolina), and the Number One issue for the Bush administration in 2008 is being fought (successfully!) by only one Democratic Presidential candidate, and he is polling at about One Percent:  Chris Dodd.

Look, I admire a lot of the other candidates.  I think Barack Obama has done an absolutely magnificent job of campaigning since late October.  I only wish Howard Dean could have borrowed from his playbook of inspiration and discipline in 2004.  Obama has worked very hard, and I'm impressed with his focus, message, and vision.  Edwards has also done a terrific job.  For all of the K-St. nervous chatter about whether his message is too angry, Edwards understands there is a deep divide between the professional political-riate and the rest of us.

Even Biden has done well.  His campaign in both Iowa and New Hampshire was strangely silent for most of 2007, and not until the late summer did you see the very basic organization come together.  Had Biden started earlier, it's quite possible he would be tracking higher than Richardson, who unfortunately gets less interesting the longer you listen to him.

That said, I think Dodd has run a great campaign -- smart, cutting-edge policy proposals, first-rate staff both in the early states and in DC, great communication vehicles (TV advertising and Internet), and a tremendously smart, well-liked candidate.  There has been nothing to criticize about either the execution or strategy.  The challenge has been, where is the attention from the media?  Or, for that matter, the voters themselves?

During the last cycle, it was incredibly invigorating to see voters "catch" the message of Howard Dean.  I will never forget watching a summer rally in New York City in 2003, as thousands of New Yorkers (and many visitors) came out to support a governor from one of the smallest states in the Union.  It was as if everyone suddenly got the secret you had harbored and knew for many years. 

Unfortunately, with Senator Dodd, the exact opposite has occurred.  For as many right steps as he has taken, the attention of the press and the voters has been focused in a different direction.  The news that Dodd is focusing squarely on the Number One issue for George Bush in 2008 should come as no surprise to anyone who follows Dodd closely.  It is also, sadly, no surprise that on the eve of the 2008 Iowa caucuses,no one is really paying attention to the Number One issue to the Bush Administration, and which candidates are doing the best job to oppose it.

Instead, on the eve of the Iowa caucus, the pundits focus on who is surging.  Or whose celebrity surrogate has appeared where.  Or whose spouse has said what.  Political reporting in the final days of a campaign has a breathless quality to it, as if suddenly the byline read, "Miss America Pageant, Atlantic City, NJ," and not "Future of the Country, Ames, IA."

It's hard to tell what will happen tomorrow night in Iowa, or indeed in New Hampshire itself.  Caucuses are quirky and New Hampshire voters reliably (and wonderfully) independent, but my gut says the Dodd message won't, alas, rise to the top in either state.  In this fox-and-hound celebrity era, guys like Dodd -- serious, thoughtful, and experienced -- simply don't meet the interest matrix of the mainstream media or the voters who follow it.

What happens next is anyone's guess.  No matter what, I'm incredibly proud of Chris Dodd and his campaign for the Democratic Presidential nomination.