A carbon tax now could save a world of hurt later.

Those knowledgeable about global warming support such a fix now and need to make their case to Congress and the public.

Re: Edwards

It is true that Dean won the money chase but lost the nomination. But does Edwards really want to put any stake in Dean's dubious feat of being one of the only direct-primary-era money chase winners not to win the nomination? (I think there was one other -- but I can't find it.) Kerry overcame Dean's advantage in part because he was the establishment's favorite (i.e., Gephardt's murder-suicide ad blitz). Edwards is nothing of the sort.

Little doubt that carbon tax is a great idea. But, if we're going to do that, how about an exeption for public trasnportation so we can keep costs down and help ensure its attractiveness as an alternative?

Edwards's comment about Dean may be superficial, but then again so is the question of who raised more money

Not really. For one thing, # of donors tells you a lot about the level of excitement the candidates are creating amongst actual voters, and for another, while raising more money doesn't make a candidate better in terms of politics or performance, it does make him/her more viable

As John Judis argued over at The New Republic

If two candidates can raise roughly the same amounts--let's say $110 million to $100 million--then, all other things being equal, they should be able to compete equally for the nomination. But if the margin is any larger--if it is comparable to Dean's five-to-three edge over Kerry in 2004--then the candidate raising less money will be at a significant disadvantage--more so than in any previous election. That's because of the changes in the primary schedule.

In the past, the early phase of the presidential race--lasting into March--was concentrated in several relatively low-cost caucuses and primaries in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. If a candidate did well in two of these, as Kerry did in 2004, he could make up an edge in fundraising before the big primary week of Super Tuesday a month later, when the number of primaries and the size of the collective electorate put a premium on paid advertising. But this year, Iowa and New Hampshire will be followed on January 19 by Nevada, then on January 29 by Florida, which will occur the same Tuesday as South Carolina, which will be followed the next week by some 23 primaries and caucuses, including California, New York, Texas, New Jersey, Georgia, and Michigan. Candidates who trail significantly in the money race on January 1 will not have time to raise enough money to compete in Florida on January 29 and in 23 states on February 5.

Among the Democrats this year, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are both going to have enough money to compete. But John Edwards, who raised only $9 million in the last quarter, compared to $32.5 million for Obama and $27 million for Clinton, looks like he is going to fall by the wayside. The problem is a practical one. Edwards is hoping that a victory in the Iowa Caucuses on January 14 will boost his chances, but, given the condensed primary schedule, a victory probably won't help him enough if he doesn't already have the money to pay for advertising in the big states. Of course, Edwards could follow Steve Forbes's precedent and make a huge loan to his campaign.

In light of analysis like that, I think its wholly appropriate to be talking money at this point in time.

Full article here

EDIT: as for Obama, I think this is driving perception:

Thieves stole two laptop computers and, curiously enough, some campaign literature.

Is Edwards really the "most electable" candidate? Every matchup I see shows all the Dems pretty much within the statistical margin of error with each other. Sometimes Hillary is strongest, sometimes Obama, sometimes Edwards, but there hasn't been a consistent "winner" that I've noticed in those head-to-heads. You sure you're not just selectively remembering those that favor your POV? That's a pretty common unconscious bias, Confirmation Bias

I'll check the mystery pollster blog and get back to you on that.

In the meantime, I dunno, Edwards has looked to be the weakest campaigner of the 3 IMO.

Edit: according to mystery pollster, the matchups go like this

Vs. Giuliani
Clinton -.7
Obama +2.8
Edwards +3.7

Vs. McCain
Clinton + 1.3
Obama + 6.2
Edwards + 5.1

Vs. Romney
Clinton +9.3
Obama + 16.3
Edwards + 21.0

Vs. Thompson
Clinton +6.2
Obama + 13.7
Edwards + 12.0

So what does that get us? Well, Edwards has a slight edge over Obama vs Rudy, but its basically a statistical tie. Obama has a slight edge vs McCain, but same deal: statistical tie. Edwards better Obama by ~5 points vs Romney, but...who care? There's no real difference between winning by 16 pts and winning by 20, is there? Both are blow outs...hell, winning by 9 pts is a blow-out.
And Obama has a slight edge vs Thompson, but, b/c the sample size is smaller, the MOE is most likely bigger, and as such, we'll call it a statistical tie.

So...what I draw from that is that both Edwards and Obama run very similar vs the Repubs, and consistently a few points better than Clinton. The #s, however, don't back up the claim that Edwards is somehow far and away the most electable of the 3.

The #s, however, don't back up the claim that Edwards is somehow far and away the most electable of the 3.

True enough but it is surprising that the haircut guy has any kind of edge over the Amway candidate.

Edwards is in danger of falling off the mat in his contest with the Big Two for the nomination and yet slightly outpolls Obama and bests Hillary easily against the Republicans. Can't be good press I think with Edwards being mercilessly derided over inconsequential matters that has a faint echo in Obama's "lack of experience."

Is it a matter of the weakness of Hillary and Obama as against an also ran or the attraction of Edwards' populist message?

If I had any idea what the answer is, I wouldn't be asking. I make no bones about preferring Edwards' message but it hasn't been apparent to me that it is getting through to the Great Unwashed. Maybe they like his haircut. :-)

Best, Terry

Still, polls this far out are kinda silly, seeing as how 1 campaign gaffe or a few strong showings can change just about everything.

Not everybody believes in early polls:

George Stephanopoulos: "Who are you going to vote for?

Mike Gravel: "I am going to vote for me."

Take care.

Terry

The Bush admininstration is like history in a microcosm: it begins in tragedy, and ends in farce.

Dingell will get slaughtered, if he proposes a carbon tax. Pelosi and Reid will both shut that down quick.

It appears that politicians want us to pay for their extreme lack of vision and leadership since the OPEC embargo of 1973. This includes Al Gore who presided over the SUV revolution, and put Kyoto on ice. Voting anyone who would propose such an idea out of office would be much easier.

The media is "pro-Hillary" because they want the Dems to lose, and she's their least promising candidate. Also, Bill is great copy.

But, the only election Edwards is capable of winning is a Democratic primary. The Dems don't need another candidate who can't carry his home state. Just what is it that makes him "most electable?" That he's not black or female?

Easier than ever? What are you smoking. The last time a Dem won Virginia was so long ago, hardly anyone remembers. It's more in play now than it has been in a long, long time.

Irony may be lost on some, but there's still little consolation to be taken from the poll numbers in the WaPo article. If the named Democrat is running 20 points behind the generic Democrat nationally, there's no reason to think he or she will do better than run 20 oints behind in Virginia.

Thats interesting. My recollection of the Hillary Clinton plan in '93-4 is that one of the big problems was "regional" prices because Medicaid would be lumped in with employer paid healthcare and there would be competition not to get stuck with high cost inner city areas. If your region got, say, the south Bronx, it could drive out employers.

yes, and we all know how far Hillary got with that. What kind of plan do you favor?

And the generic advantage can disappear so quickly. I remember 1988 and seeing the then-hugely popular TV shock jock Morton Downey, Jr. on Nightline in the spring saying that he thought Vice President Bush would go on his show because Bush would need any attention he could get but that Dukakis wouldn't do his show because he wouldn't need it. Dukakis was a whole 17 points ahead.

In like September, Ted Koppel had Dukakis himself on Nightline and showed him polling and maps that showed he'd already lost the election.

People on Democratic blogs dismiss Romney but I think he'd be a pretty strong candidate in the general, especially against Hillary Clinton. I think he has that Bush ability (like the father) to let underlings go for the jugular while coming off as "such a nice man" himself.

With all due respect, I disagree with where the power-worship is. I think the Democratic Party has a bit of power politics in play. On one side is the party "establishment" representing those folks who voted or supported the Iraq War, even if they later had an "awakening" that, of course, has nothing to do with public opinion. (haha) Let's fit the Clintons, Biden, Dodd, Richardson and a few others (Murtha and Hoyer come immediately to mind) in this category.

In another category in the party are the ones who actually got it right on Iraq. Let's call these folks the Pelosi, Obama, Kucinich sort of folks (perhaps others like Levin). They definitely do not have the "power" within the party. But, by gum, they want it.

Another category are the party fence-sitters watching the battle and hedging their bets.

Think about the media coverage and access to one faction or another in the Democratic Party when you assess what is going on. The party establishment folks have long ties to the media and lots of access. That gives them media coverage. That's what we're seeing right now. It's the reason that the "Hillary is inevitable" frame won't die.

Any of the Republicans would be strong candidates against Hillary. When it comes down to it, the absolute best outcome she can hope for is to win a squeaker. I mean, can you imagine Hillary even making it close in Virginia? Obama's upside is enormous. If he does things right, he could win 60% of the vote.

I remember a Saturday Night Live skit in 1988 satirizing the Bush/Dukakis debate. Bush (Dana Carvey) stood up there gabbling some nonsensical gibberish, and when he was done, Dukakis (Jon Lovitz) looked at him, shook his head and said, "I can't believe I'm losing to this guy."

The Dems could easily repeat this scenario. Personally, I think Frederick of Hollywood is their best shot, just because Romney is such an obvious liar and bullshit artist, from his breathtaking flip-floppery on right wing core issues, to his bullshittery about things that don't even matter, like, "I'm a lifelong hunter."

But failing the laugh test has never disqualified any Republican, and you may well be right about Mitt. Two things Bush has taught us is that ANYBODY can be president, and that the Republicans aren't embarrassed to present any hapless oaf to the American people as their best man.