But last week the undead meme was walking again:

The GOP’s Best Weapon In 2010
History Makes The Case For Divided Government
By Gary Andres

Morris Fiorina is a political scientist that wrote the definitive text on Divided Government, titled appropriately enough – “Divided Government“. His comment in this piece goes directly to the raison d’être for my blog. To seek an answer to this never-ending question – “Rather than trusting the partisan balancing choice to a subconscious impulse, would we not be much better off if a few percentage of the electorate simply voted consciously for divided government?” And to promote that divided government voting heuristic.

On that topic, two more recent articles on the same general theme:

Swing time is coming for Dems, GOP
By: Noemie Emery Examiner Columnist

THE REAL REASON AMERICANS ARE ANGRY
It’s the big government, stupid.
by Matt Welch

A side benefit of watching the undead specter of divided government haunt the media again – We are no longer hearing about how the United States is really a “center-left” country.

It may be a bit early for these proclamations and conclusions. We are still more than a year away from the midterms. I still think it will take until 2012 to get there, but when Chris Dodd, Arlen Specter, and Harry Reid are all in trouble, we can safely say that divided government is rising from the grave.

Cross posted from “Divided We Stand United We Fall“

While I agree that polls are meaningless from this distance, insight into the election can be gleaned from structural issues. Shortly after the November election, I posted an analysis on the prospect of restoring divided government in 2010 or 2012. This summary/conclusion paraphrased from that post:

After the 2008 election the Democrats picked up an additional 21 seats and will have a crushing 82+ seat majority in the House. Given the difficulty of changing majorities in the House, there is almost no likelihood of a Republican majority in the house before 2014 and probably longer (even with a hurricane force political tailwind, the Democrats only picked up 21 seats in ‘08 – do the math). That leaves the Senate as the only determinant of whether divided government can be restored in 2010. In 2012, either re-taking the Senate or the presidency are possibilities for restoring divided government, as the house will likely remain out of reach…

Conclusion / Predictions

We will have One Party Rule under the Democrats for at least four years.

The next opportunity to restore divided government will be in 2012.

The Republicans will have two ways to get there, so I will go out on a limb and make the prediction that divided government will be restored in 2012, either through the Republicans winning the presidency or (more likely) a majority in the Senate. If the latter, we will be in the interesting situation that we have a divided congress, and regardless of which party wins the presidency – a divided government. That’s a good thing.

No telling what shape the country will be in by then.

I stand by the overall thesis, but all the results were not in and a few things have changed. Time for an update.

First, based on the completely insane deficit spending in the first six months of Single Party Democratic Rule, we now have an answer to the last bullet. We will be in very sorry economic shape by the 2012 election, with a debased currency, high inflation, and possibly eclipsed by the more capital friendly China as the pre-eminent economic engine on the planet.

Second, there have been some changes in the structural elements of the 2010 Senate races. Republican Arlen Specter changed his party affiliation, and the Missouri race was finally decided. With Al Franken now in the Senate, there are 60 Senators who caucus Democrat and 40 Senators who caucus Republican. With special elections in New York to replace Hillary Clinton and in Delaware to replace Joe Biden, we now have 36 Senate seats up for grabs in 2010, with 18 held by Republicans and 18 held by Democrats.

Perversely, the Republican hand in 2010 was strengthened by their unrelenting poor performance in 2008. Instead of defending 19 of 34 seats as outlined in my previous post, they are defending 18 of 36 seats, exactly like the Democrats, and on a structurally even playing field in 2010. They are in far too deep a hole to have any chance of retaking the Senate majority in 2010, but (despite Justin’s snark) if they can take 2 or 3 seats, it will be a big win and they will be in an excellent position to retake the Senate in 2012 when they have significant structural factors in their favor.

The Senate remains the best chance to divide this government in 2012. While Barack Obama’s poll numbers have predictably eroded from the stratospheric level he enjoyed earlier in the year, he still has a deep reservoir of goodwill and personal popularity with voters. He is personable, likable, smart, and as Joe Biden noted – “clean and articulate”. Predictions three years out are indeed foolish, but barring some as of yet unrevealed scandal close to the President, I expect he will be reelected.

Net net – The best chance to restore fiscal rationality in 2012 is for Republicans to take the Senate, and that will take two election cycles. A journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step, and the first step is for Republicans to pick up a couple of seats in 2010.

Two Senate races have peaked my early interest.

Pat Toomey is a solid fiscal conservative. His primary challenge to Arlen Specter is widely attributed to be the reason Specter changed his party affiliation. Ironically, if Specter survives a Democratic Party primary challenge, he could still easily lose to Toomey in the general election. I like Toomey’s chances. I like what he says about divided government. And I really like the way he acquitted himself in a laughably hostile Hardball appearance on Tuesday August 4:

Another campaign of interest – Democratic Senator Chris Dodd’s Connecticut seat. I had some positive things to say about Chris Dodd during his brief presidential run. That was then. This is now. A lot of questions emerged about his close relationship with Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, a sweetheart mortgage from Countrywide Financial and cozy relationships with banking lobbyists. This is a race that should be a slam dunk and a safe seat for Democrats, but is now up for grabs. Recent polls show that Dodd is trailing former Republican congressman Rob Simmons. Simmons would be a fine choice. But there is another interesting challenger in Connecticut. Money manager and economic soothsayer Peter Schiff is also considering a run for this seat.

Schiff took a page from the Ron Paul campaign and his “moneybomb” effort today is showing pretty impressive results thus far for a Senatorial campaign:

Maybe we will get that libertarian voice in the Senate.

x-posted from “Divided We Stand United We Fall“

Senate Banking Committee Chair Chris Dodd has had better days. Looks like the AIG bonus scandal just found a political whipping boy:

Dodd just admitted on CNN that he inserted a loophole in the stimulus legislation that allowed million-dollar bonuses to insurance giant AIG to go forward – after previously denying any involvement in writing the controversial provision.

“We wrote the language in the bill, the deal with bonuses, golden parachutes, excessive executive compensation that was adopted unanimously by the United States Senate in the stimulus bill,” Dodd told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer this afternoon.

“But for that language, there would have been no language to deal with this at all.”

Dodd had previously said that he played no role in writing the controversial language, and was not a part of the conference committee that inserted the language in the bill.

I like the “But for that language” part of the quote. If Dodd thought the language was good, he wouldn’t have hid from his involvement in it. He’ll have a hard time defending his role now. Sure, a lot of people voted for the bill, but the “I didn’t read that part” excuse is better than the “I wrote that part and then denied and am now hoping it all goes away” excuse.

It is.

But $2 trillion is.. ridiculous.

This is Danielle Ivory from ANP.

Congress and the new administration have been focusing their attention on strengthening oversight for the Treasury’s TARP program, but meanwhile few are paying any attention to the Federal Reserve.

Since September, the Fed has lent out about $2 trillion (Bloomberg reported 1.2 trillion in November), but it’s keeping the names of its recipients a big secret.

And while the Treasury’s bailout package has a $700 billion cap, there’s no limit to how much money the Fed can lend.

The American News Project sat down with Washington newcomer, Congressman Alan Grayson (D-FL), who actually used his five minutes of valuable Q & A time in a Financial Services hearing to do some serious Fed fact-finding.

You can see the story or get the embed code here.

Or follow Danielle’s reporting on twitter here.

And visit Acorn Project for more music like this.

Today, Henry Paulson urged Congress to release the second half of the $700 billion of the bailout money. But no one seems know what banks have done with the first $350 billion. Despite the fact that Congress wrote more than one hundred pages about oversight in the bailout bill, they left a gaping hole.

All of the content on ANP is available for free! If you like the piece, please feel free to post it on your blog, or replay on the radio or tv.

http://americannewsproject.com/videos/186

But Leonard’s piece is an exception. In the explosion of meta analysis of presidential politics, it’s become more chic to talk about what voters are voting for than to write about the reality on the ground. The role of the press and commentators has somehow transformed from what Thomas Jefferson called ” the best instrument for enlightening the mind of man” into a virtual Oracle at Delphi, working only on predictive functions rather than analytical ones. For instance, today Hillary Clinton is actually holding a campaign event at a Pittsburgh gas station. From her press release (which we will post shortly):

Hillary Clinton will visit a gas station in Pittsburgh to discuss her plan to offer relief from skyrocketing gas prices that are hurting the pocketbooks of families in Pennsylvania and across the country. At the Curran Gulf Gas Station, Hillary will be joined by the owner, Jay Curran, gas station employees, and Janice Hodge, a local resident who has been forced to cut back on other household expenses due to the high cost of gas.

“I think it’s time we kicked the oil men out of the White House. Unfortunately, despite a lot of talk about clean energy, Senator Obama voted for Dick Cheney’s budget-busting tax breaks for big oil. And Senator McCain opposes eliminating them,” said Clinton.“I will provide solutions to offer relief from record gas prices, end our addiction to foreign oil, protect the planet, and create millions of new jobs.”

This is all complete nonsense. And it would be nonsense had Barack Obama or John McCain said any of it as well.

First, her entire plan for lower gas prices is a long term plan. There is little if anything a President can do in the next 8 years to lower gas prices. (As Leonard mentions, one possibility is releasing the Strategic Oil Reserves, but that’s just a terrible idea; first, the price lowering may not be noticeable, and second, taxpayers would just have to spend money to buy enough oil to fill up the reserves again after they were released. What’s the point of that, exactly?). Now, some of the ideas in the long term plan may be good ones (or may be bad ones, depending on your politics) but absolutely none of them will have any substantial impact on gas prices in the next decade barring some major technological breakthrough.

Moreover, the charge about Cheney and Bush being oilmen and thereby manufacturing high gas prices is the biggest canard out there (That no one ever tries to refute for some reason). First, note the logical inconsistency with what I wrote right up top: if higher gas prices causes a party to lose elections, why in the world would Bush and Cheney want higher gas prices? The logic just doesn’t follow.

Furthermore, the language about tax breaks for big oil has absolutely nothing to do with big oil. It cannot logically even be intended to be. Anyone who has taken a basic economics course knows that raising taxes on a provider will not likely lead that provider to lower prices. The mere concept is absurd. It’s rather an attempt to connect emotionally with the audience – “they are screwing you, well I will screw them” sort of thing. Unfortunately, no company is going to lower prices for fear of rescission of any of these tax breaks. Nor does Clinton even claim that to be so.

The actual reason for higher gas prices is twofold: high costs for both crude oil and refining costs. (Clinton actually mentionedthe emergence during the past decade of two other major consumers of gasoline, India and China. (And no, Carl Levin is not any more than marginally right). Katrina revealed the problem with refineries, as the damage that some took in the storm was a significant reason for subsequent higher prices. Recent news indicates very complicated problems with oil production:

Energy experts cited numerous underlying causes for the rise in energy prices, which have persisted despite a weakening American economy. American demand for gasoline has slipped about 50,000 barrels a day (out of total daily consumption of more than 20 million barrels) so far this year because of the slowing economy, but consumption in China, in India and in the oil-producing countries themselves continues to rise. Traders are also concerned about possible production cuts by the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries.

World supplies have been trimmed by substantial cutbacks in production in Iraq and Nigeria in recent weeks. Nigeria alone has lost about 10 percent of its daily production since guerrillas stepped up their sabotage and kidnapping of oil workers in the Niger Delta at the end of last year. Some analysts fear that OPEC could cut production further when it meets next month to counter the prospect that a softening world economy may eventually weaken demand and push prices down.

As Leonard notes, Bush tried to convince OPEC to lower prices to no avail. So it’s hard for me to see how any of the three candidates would have better luck. Do they claim to have incriminating photos of OPEC members doing outrageous sex acts or something? Who knows.

This is not just a short term trend that is going to be magically erased. (For instance, see this BBC article of 2004 and this one of 2008).

But let’s take a look at strategies proposed to lower gas prices…[continued at 2008Central.net]

[Listen Online]

[Subscribe to 2008Central.net's Presidential Election Podcast]

Feel free to email us questions/suggestions for next week’s podcast (you can also email an audio file of your question and we’ll include it in the podcast).

We shall see…

9:00: Reminder, Dems: Obama, Edwards, Clinton; GOP: Huckabee, Romney, Thompson/McCain/Paul

9:09: Andrea Mitchell calls it a “remarkably bad outcome for Hillary”

9:10: Matthews says the Clinton comeback begins now.

9:11: John Edwards is making an appearance, smiling; Matthews cites Edwards’ need to win in order to be relevant after Iowa. Elizabeth Edwards introduces him, and thanks everyone.

9:13: Elizabeth Edwards cites their campaign being outspent 6-1 combined. That’s REALLY disingenuous. Edwards speaks, saying that the status quo lost and change won. Essentially declares the death of Clinton.

9:15: Edwards talks about problems with health care, including a girl who was denied coverage of health insurance, and also the man who could not talk for 50 years. He also cites the Maytag plant closing. Cites the Roosevelts and Truman as presidents with backbone. By the way, it’s unclear if the insurance company really was responsible as Edwards claims:

Mark Geragos, attorney for the girl’s family, said he plans to ask the district attorney to press murder or manslaughter charges against CIGNA HealthCare in the case. The insurer “maliciously killed her” because it did not want to bear the expense of her transplant and aftercare, Geragos said. Video Watch as the family takes on CIGNA »

Nataline had been battling leukemia and received a bone marrow transplant from her brother. She developed a complication, however, that caused her liver to fail.

Doctors at UCLA determined she needed a transplant and sent a letter to CIGNA Healthcare on December 11. The Philadelphia-based health insurance company denied payment for the transplant.

On Thursday, about 150 teenagers and nurses protested outside CIGNA’s office in Glendale. As the protesters rallied, the company reversed its decision and said it would approve the transplant.

Despite the reversal, CIGNA said in an e-mail statement before she died that there was a lack of medical evidence showing the procedure would work in Nataline’s case.

“Our hearts go out to Nataline and her family, as they endure this terrible ordeal,” the company said. ” … CIGNA HealthCare has decided to make an exception in this rare and unusual case and we will provide coverage should she proceed with the requested liver transplant.”

9:19: Edwards rails against corporations, including oil companies. Every cliché is hit. He even drops that Elizabeth has breast cancer, and others will too. It’s a litany of sob stories, including homeless veterans. Says America can fix all this.

9:22: Edwards says change won. He’s going on and on, possibly to minimize others getting on 11pm newscasts on the east coast? Just a guess. He hasn’t said much at all.

9:23: Matthews notes that neither Edwards congratulated the victor, and that they did not want to concede in ‘04; the campaign theme song of Kerry kicks in. (The Rising, by Springsteen).

9:25: The Clintons are on stage, with a large group of people including Vilsack, Albright, and Clark. In other words: we still have a lot of support. A ‘Hillary’ chant breaks out as Bill gives a thumbs up. She promises to take the enthusiasm to New Hampshire and ‘it is a great night for Democrats.’ Says this turnout means Democrats will win. She congratulates Obama and Edwards and thanks Dodd, Richardson, Kucinich, and Biden by name.

9:27: Her demeanor is pitch perfect for such a disappointing night. Pivots to focus on how a winning with a candidate “who can go the distance … and be the best president on day one.” Cites her plans to run a national campaign through the early states, while chiding independents and Republicans who came late to the table.

9:30: Families are good and need to be kept good.

9:32: She is ready to lead. Cites health care and energy. Also cites education reforms. Says she is more optimistic about the country than her campaign. Says a lot of people could not caucus – those in the military. Also says people work at night. This sounds like a line of excuses.

9:34: Thanks the unions across the country who support her. She says the election is about the future (uhm, no crap). And that’s it, and everyone starts hugging each other.

9:37: Huck! He’s ready to go. Chuck Norris is right behind him, and smiling like a cheshire cat. He says he loves Iowa a lot tonight. Thanks everyone who treated him with respect and listened to him. Really humble and personable approach that really works in direct contrast to most of the field. Says his wife will be a great First Lady. Thanks his children.

9:41: Says his campaign starts in Iowa and ends in Washington a year from now. Says money has proven to be overrated. Says that tonight could forever chan gethe political system. (Uhm, probably not.) Says choice was for a change, but change can be for the worse or better.

9:43: The greatest generation can be the next generation. (Another anti-boomer candidate?) Says the election and country is not about him, but tonight will start a “prairie fire” across the country. Says the people are the ruling class in America.

9:45: Huck cites GK Chesterson, a Christian apologetic, and says people must love people behind them not hate those in front of him as Chuck Norris stands directly behind him. Says we must do whatever it takes to do what is right for those in America. Reminds everyone that this is the beginning. Again thanks Iowa.

9:51: Tim Russert looks like he’s been drinking whiskey all day. He’s staring at Brian Williams a bit uncomfortably.

10:02: Romney spoke at the same time as Huckabee, citing the Olympics as different events having different results.

10:03: Obama takes the stage with his family. They leave and Obama takes the podium.

10:04: Says the cynics have been proven wrong. He’s in ‘big speech’ mode. Cites New Hampshire next, and the rest of America after that. Cites the big turnout, and Democrats, Republicans, and Independents standing together for change and for one country. Starts echoing the 04 Convention speech with uniting red states and blue states. Says time has come to take power back from lobbyists and for an honest president. Says he can be that president if New Hampshire gives him the same support. Unbelievable atmosphere compared to the other campaigns. Says he will make health care affordable and available to everyone. Promises a middle class tax cut. Speaks of freeing America from the tyranny of oil. The speech is focused on him as a president, and mixing that message with his campaign theme.

10:11: Thanks organizers and precinct captains; no one else thanked them. Thanks his wife, “the closer on the campaign trail.”

10:12: Says it was not done for him, but for American ideals and fighting against odds for what people believe in.

10:13: Says nights like this justify the hard times in a campaign, and this is the moment it all began. Says the improbably and “what Washington said was inevitable” are torn down. Says politics of cynicism were beaten down. Says hope is not blind, but that something better is available if it is worked for. Says hope was what inspired the American Revolution, World War II, and the civil rights movement.

10:17: Obama says it’s about the USA and wraps it up to thunderous applause.

10 :18: Quickly over to Biden, who is dropping out. He thanks film makers and those that are supporting him. Thanks his wife.

[Continued at 2008Central.net]

2:00: And we’re here. First question about balancing the budget. Richardson shockingly talks about being a governor. Biden blames bad Republican priorities. Dodd talks about how everything is complicated and there needs to be jobs and no more war in Iraq. It’s a complicated answer and spends more time saying Richardson’s experience is meaningless than anything. The battle for fourth continues! Edwards says taking on greed in the federal government is the key to everything. Doesn’t really say how. Clinton talks about the success of the Clinton administration in this area, and that it cannot be done in a year, but economic growth requires fiscal discipline.

2:10: When are tax increases appropriate? Richardson talks about taxing the wealthiest more, and a constitutional amendment for balancing the budget with about 5 exceptions. More ending the war talk. Edwards continues the assault on corporations by blaming them for this system, and ending the tax breaks for people that take jobs overseas. Also talks about specific policies he’s proposed without saying if these changes would pay for everything. Clinton says she wants to restore taxes on corporations from the 90s.

2:14: Won’t it take time to cut military expenses from Iraq? Biden talks about making serious cuts in the Defense Department. Obama says he’s put forward where the money would come from for every proposal he made. Obama talks about a building in the Cayman Islands that houses 12,000 corporations. There’s no way to distinguish any of the top 3 candidates on anti-corporate rhetoric. It’s simply impossible. Richardson jumps on the Biden train and talks about MORE programs he would institute. Dodd talks about being pro-growth and the child tax credit and the earned income tax credit. Minimalistic response…

2:17: Richardson talks about China being a competitor and leadership being needed … and then about how much leverage China has by holding our debt. Dodd talks about how much China is adversarial in regards to trade and something needs to be done. Nothing about how he would change things aside from being ‘tough.’

2:20: Clinton is asked about entitlement programs. Talks about Medicare specifically being a problems with rising costs and Social Security in the long run. Touts her plan with reducing Social Security. Biden says lifting the cap on Social Security is an easy solution (everyone but her seems to say that). Biden gives the preventative and modernization schtick. It’s a good schtick, but never seems to go anywhere. Obama jumps on the prevention train, citing obesity rates from 1980 saving a trillion dollars. He then talks about changing politics in Washington. Richardson says universal health care is a right and then goes into the prevention train.

2:24: Open statement, from Obama. References King and the fierce urgency of now. Thematic, and concludes by asking everyone to caucus for him. Edwards goes next, talking about corporate power and corporate greed, and being willing to fight them, and its what he has done his entire life (it’s phrases like that that bring up the Fortress stuff). He finishes by accidentally saying America will be worse. Ummm….

2:26: Trades v. Terrorism: Biden says human rights standards should be added to trade agreements. Richardson channels Carter in saying Human rights is a fundamental tenet of Americna foreign policy. Says we should consider sanctioning China unless they hold open elections. Really?He keeps going by adding so many standards that none of those he mentions has an impact. Dodd talks about the Harken amendment in a blatant attempt to pander. Says it should be universal right, not ad hoc. Iraq, Chris? Edwards says human rights should be essential, but America gets dangerous toys and plant closures. I’d love to hear a word count on corporate for the day.

2:31: Clinton says NAFTA ought be changed, and that there are winners and losers from NAFTA, and she will ask for revisions and get labor and environmental standards. Doesn’t want to be a trade patsy. Obama pretty much agrees. He goes back to human rights and says that situations like Guantanamo undermine leverage on human rights. An issue of going back that really worked. Dodd jumps in with saying he proposed sanctions in the Senate for Darfur that passed unanimously.

2:32: Biden talks about how America is ready for action and cites a Catholic hymn. Richardson thanks Iowa humorously and then segues into how many Americans are dying in Iraq and bad VA treatment. Awkward segue there, but he seemed to somehow pull it off.

2:35: How would you turn energy costs of your plans into a benefit for the economy? Biden talks about some things that can be done, but sacrifice is necessary ultimately. Richardson is a governor and was energy secretary, if you did not know. Also, he talks about how it was a shame that the Senate killed the Energy Bill. Talks for a long time but doesn’t say much. Dodd continues pandering and dropping Iowan names, and then goes to the corporate carbon tax, and that Gore endorsed it. Finishes on a rhetorical flurry that would be impressive if he was a candidate who mattered. Clinton talks aabout a cap and trade system and new ways to get to objectives while cushioning costs, while enlisting people in a cause. Another rhetorical flurry, but aimed at avoiding specifics that would harm her in a general election. Obama says its a moral imperative for his daughters. Obama talks about wind turbines in Keokuk, which is also pandering but at least interesting. Talks about being bold enough to talk about efficiency in Detroit, which isn’t as bold as he made it seems. Edwards blames … corporate interests, don’t you know. Implies there’s no difference between carbon tax or a cap and trade system. Finishes with a moral responsibility claim. Clinton jumps in regarding the raise your hand on global warming thing from yesterday, saying ‘we all believe in it.’ This is what she did at earlier debates – showing leadership of the candidates, even if unprompted.

2:44: How would you have voted on the farm bill? Dodd says he would definitely vote to preserve Iowa. Shocking. Obama says he would cap subsidies for agri-business to help the family farm. Far more nuanced than Dodd, but the pander-thon continues. Says he would have voted against the farming bill. Biden drops the Culver name as well and says he doesn’t see farmers in Iowa, as there’s no family farmers left, really. Finishes by citing Tom Harken. Clinton says she follows Harken on the farm issue, and apparently has New York family farmers traveling Iowa today to help Iowan family farmers. Says family farmers are almost an ‘endangered species.’

2:48: Clinton is touched by Iowan stories. Says you don’t get change by demanding it or hoping for it, you get it by working hard for it, and asks people to caucus for her. Echoes of John Kerry working the front lines there. Dodd talks about a sense of competence and achievement and working in the Peace Corps. “We ask for your vote.” I’m not a fan of the royal we.

2:50: How do we improve schools? Edwards says get them young, universal Pre-K. Wants a national teaching university like the naval academy, and big changes in No Child Left Behind. And wraps up with … two Americas! Somewhere, Mitt Romney is throwing something at a TV. Richardson realizes how many ‘top priorities’ he has and say it would be one of the top priorities. He wants more science and math; Also wants to reform the high school curriculum ‘with local control.’ I don’t understand that whatsoever. And finishes with teachers getting paid more and an appeal to art. Follow up with a question about New Mexico; Richardson talks about how bad education was and how high teachers are now paid. Watch the footwork as he dodges the issue!

2:54: Obama jumps on the above lines of thought, and then moves on to asking parents to do more to help education. Dodd says education is the key to everything, and the accident of birth. And he agrees that it’s important to start with parents, and leadership that talks about it everyday. Clinton talks about a long history of work and ‘knows’ that the president has a bully pulpit (which plenty others already mentioned, but she’s framing it as in she knows what the White House is about). Dull answer, interesting framing. Edwards chides the moderator for asking him the qusetion twice, and talks about paying for college at community college or a state university. The moderator chides him back saying he raised his hand. Biden talks about his wife teaching today.

3:00: Your first year, what can you do: Obama talks about starting to end the war and initating diplomacy. Second, undermining every executive order by Bush. Then health care. Biden says he will order the Biden plan in Iraq, and making other health care and education reforms. Richardson will end the war, pass universal health care, energy reforms, and that he will follow the Constitution. He goes on and on, and the moderator, Biden, and Dodd all crack lines about it.

3:04: Personal ethical question. Will Clinton be as secretive as her health care plan was criticized as being? When asked about gaffes, Biden talks about Indians building families though “7/11s, Duncan Donuts, etc.” it’s about building families and similar to Italians owning restaurants and that he talks bluntly. Everyone on stage agrees that Biden has bona fides on civil rights, Obama in particular. How can Edwards accomplish goals with calling groups in Washingotn corrupt? Easy question for him, it’s straight from his stump speech. Talks about an epic battle in front of us. Nowhere near as elephant in the room as the first two questions. It’s important to win … but doesn’t talk about how he would fight. Just that he would fight. How much is Dodd motivated by the memory of his father being censured by the Senate for misusing campaign funds? Dodd says that his father was well intentioned and he wants to continue that tradition. Richardson is asked about the troubles when he was Energy Secretary with Wen Ho Lee. Richardson says it was about nuclear secrets and Lee being incarcerated and that he’s glad the other gaffes were not raised (seriously). He doesn’t want to apologize for protecting nuclear secrets. Obama is asked about relying on Clinton foreign policy advisers as Clinton cackles (hey, I have an awkward laugh too, let’s call a spade a spade); Obama shoots back he is looking forward to Hillary advising him as well. Obama says there’s plenty of people from Clinton, Carter, and the Bush I years that know what they are talking about.

3:15: Would you use signing statements? Clinton says she would use them like they were used before W, telling a funny anecdote about Bush making a signing statement to practically veto a bill she passed on FEMA. Edwards agrees wit hthat and says that all branches of government should be co-equal … (he does not mention taking away health care).

3:17: New Years Resolutions: Clinton talks about family, exercise, and campaigning that Democrats can be proud of. Edwards says that children are going hungry, without health insurance, and people are losing jobs. Far more powerful appeal than Clinton’s. Dodd talks about optimism, hope, and moral authority, and juxtaposes Guantanamo with Nuremberg; finishes with a caucusing joke. Richardson says his resolution every year is to lose weight. Says that Congress and the President should end the dysfunctional relationship, but that he should stay positive. Ummm, 1+1 does nto equal 3, Bill. Biden says that he tries to remember where he came from, and remember when things were bad so you can appreciate the good times. Obama talks about being a better family man and remind himself that it is not about him and he cannot be afraid of losing.

3:22: Lessons from Iowa: the logical conclusion of Pander-rama. Clinton thanks everyone, and that she has eaten her way across Iowa and will remember them when President. Back to inevitability! Edwards talks about Iowans driven by the gut. Dodd talks about Iowa. Richardson talks about how he has studied the Iowa history, and how they like underdogs. Biden says Iowa deserves to be first. Obama talks about core decency. He’s deliberately avoiding the inevitability rhetoric.

That’s it. Briefly: Pander, pander, pander, plus Clinton is back to the early strategy….

[Continued at 2008Central.net...]

We’ll be live blogging the event.

2:07: Only 3 topics will be discussed during the debate: (1) Iran and the lessons of Iraq, (2) relations with China and how they affect us here and (3) immigration. The participating candidates are Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd, Joe Biden, John Edwards,

2:10: First question, do the candidates agree that Iran still presents a threat? Clinton disagrees with Bush’s assessment that a policy change is not required. She stresses more diplomacy. Mike Gravel doesn’t think Iran is a threat. Obama thinks Iran is still a threat. He expresses concern over the fact that the Bush administration has a tendency to ignore facts that could get in the way of ideology. Dodd thinks their needs to be more international support, reminds everyone that we need a more multilateral approach and Iraq hurts our ability to do that. Biden says that we cannot trust President Bush, criticizes some of his policies. Biden states that Iran is not a nuclear threat and says that Iran must be dealt with directly. Edwards points out the vote in the Senate to label the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization. Kucinich reminds everyone that he’s been right about WMD in Iraq and now Iran for the longest time.

2:16: Hillary is questioned regarding her vote to label the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization. She cites their support for Hamas and Hezbollah and then cites Obama as a corresponding source. Hillary maintains that Obama is just as militant towards Iran as she has always been. Edwards “strongly disagrees” with Hillary regarding her vote, but fails to be able to defend his remarks against Iran while discussing Israel. Obama responds to Hillary to more clearly define his position – he insists that IF Iran had WMD’s he would strike but that it was only a hypothetical case.

2:20: Kucinich clarifies… Hillary, Edwards and Obama sanction the President’s militant rhetoric by insisting all options are on the table. Dodd points out that he and Biden voted against that Senate resolution. Hillary defends her vote saying that the resolution did not, in any way, license the President to go to war – she says that the resolution only provides sticks. Edwards insists that Hillary “agrees with George Bush” and Hillary calls it an “outlandish political attack.” She insists that her vote has further pressured the Iranians with positive results. Gravel insists there is no evidence – Gravel refers to Hamas and Hezbollah as elected organizations and cites that Iran has a right to support any political group, just as the United States can support Israel. Biden chimes in, as the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee – Biden says everyone misunderstands – the declaration of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization undermines America – in both foreign policy and oil prices. Obama piles on. Edwards wants to clarify to the listeners that only ONE democratic candidate voted for the aforementioned resolution. Edwards then proposes a return to stick-and-carrot diplomacy. Hillary responds that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard is directed by the Ayatollah – and that diplomacy requires economic sanctions provided in the resolution she voted for. Hillary insists “none of us is advocating a rush to war.”

2:29: Question – why are Americans disliked so much? Biden contends it’s because we are trust so little. Argues that our foreign policy makes it seem as though we’re engaging in a war on Islam.

2:31: Edwards is asked how to reconcile our support for Israel with the concerns of the international Muslim community. Edwards gives an odd answer about education. Obama criticizes the rhetoric of many GOP candidates. Says that it gives the impression that we are not willing to engage in diplomacy. Specifies by saying that we need to close Guantanamo and take other measures to appeal to the people within those regions. Kucinich cites the Iraq war.

2:35: This is truly a good debate. It’s a shame more aren’t like this.

2:38: Time for a break. Next topic is China.

2:40: Question – Given China’s size, who has more leverage China or the United States? Edwards initially dodges the question. When pressed says that they are strong, but we are stronger and need to engage China more. Obama notes that China has more leverage in areas that we do not engage in. Kucinich pulls the ‘I told you so’ card again by referencing his vote against trade benefits for China out of concern for its impact on the manufacturing base in America. Clinton says we have more leverage, but it doesn’t count because a) we’re not using it and b) we’ve handicapped ourselves through fiscal irresponsibility and bad foreign policy.

2:46: Question – Would you restrict trade with China? Biden would not restrict trade through tariffs. Justifies this by saying that we are over emphasizing the significance of China.

[Continued at 2008Central.net]

[Listen Online]

[Subscribe to 2008Central.net's Presidential Election Podcast]

Feel free to email us questions/suggestions for next week’s podcast (you can also email an audio file of your question and we’ll include it in the podcast).

Fractured results in the initial primaries and caucuses disrupt Mitt Romney’s plan to rack up a series of convincing wins ahead of the big states where Giuliani expects to run well. It’s harder to build a head of steam when you’re fighting gnats, and any success the also-rans achieve will dilute Rudy weakness in the smaller, earlier states.

Make sense. The field is incredibly crowded, and with Huck and Ron Paul coming on strong, you’re definitely looking at a fractured vote. If Romney has any chance of winning solidly in any of these early states, people are going to have to drop out. And that looks increasingly unlikely with such an unpredictable electorate.

Could the same be true for Hillary, who’s polling way ahead in a lot of primary states? Or is it simply a three way race, as it was in 2004 with Kerry, Dean and Edwards?

We shall see…

Hmm….could Dodd steal Richardson’s dark horse status? Here’s certainly been impressive in the debates and positions himself credibly as somebody who knows his stuff inside and out.

From Politico:

Chris Dodd’s campaign is set this week to announce a quite major labor endorsement: the International Association of Firefighters, according to a source familiar with the plans. [...]

The endorsement also means spurning Hillary Rodham Clinton, who worked hard for, and won, the backing of New York firefighters unions in her 2006 reelection campaign. She won their gratitude on 9/11 health issues, and her first campaign event was a firefighter endorsement in Brooklyn.

Still, how much of a shot does Dodd have against the heavyweights? Not too much, so ultimately this endorsement will fall to Dodd as a thank you for helping firefighters out in the past, but will move to a more likely candidate once Dodd drops out.