Anyone who has been on the campaign trail knows that this group is one of the best organized and most active.

It will be very interesting to see if they can actually motivate all of their supporters to caucus for their favored candidate.

Is it part of Edwards' platform to cut 15% of Pentagon spending. In other words, to look at the Pentagon budget, cut it by 15% by removing certain projects, and then taking that money and putting it elsewhere?

Is that true? If so, that is awesome.

According to the Sensible Priorities "Presidential Candidate Scorecard" - their bottom line lists how many $ billions are left after removing Pentagon funded programs, for each of the candidates per their votes on the funding.

With John Edwards, there is $22 billion to spend; with Hillary Clinton, $8 billion; with Barack Obama, $8 billion, and with Joe Biden, $44.1 billion.

Why they chose someone who only cut half the Pentagon projects, leaving a paltry $22 billion left, doesn't make sense.

Since the story can't be confirmed maybe they did indeed choose a better candidate. We'll know tomorrow.

Another good group out there on the election trail every day is the ONE Campaign. Check out www.onevote08.org. They are doing yeoman's work seeking bipartisan support for combatting extreme poverty and AIDS.

I think electoral viability is part of their reasoning, so that explains why no Kucinich, Biden, or (I guess) Richardson, who apparently courted them hard.

Caucus4Priorities Videos:

http://www.youtube.com/groups_videos?name=caucus4priorities

Presidential Scorecard:

http://caucus4priorities.org/scorecard.php

Lookie, here, a timely article on waste and pork in the Pentagon budget, a new third rail that neither party in Congress wants to address.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2007/11/house_passes_pentagon_nonwar_b.php

Cool group indeed, though this might come back in the general. And given that Edwards is at his year-long lowest in today's Iowa caucus poll, he needs all this help!

Hillary didn't even return the questionnaire?!

http://cmondisplay.com/2007/10/23/snubbed-by-clinton-iowans-for-sensible-priorities-to-endorse-nov-9/

Anyone who has seen the latest Zogby poll which includes 2nd choice candidates (which is an absolutely crucial measure in the Iowa caucuses) knows that the state is basically a 3-way tie for all purposes. This endorsement, but most especially the organization that goes with it, is indeed a big boost for Edwards. Edwards knows how to play the Iowa game, as evidenced 4 yrs ago. Nowhere but down? Hardly. Edwards could take Iowa as easily as Obama or Senator Satan at this point.

Contrary to dcshungu, I think this is great news. Iowans for Sensible Priorities has been getting a lot of visibility in the Progressive community in Iowa. There are a lot of cars in Iowa City at least with their "budget pie" decals. I think they will clearly focus some voters on which leading candidate is the true progressive.

If Edwards wins the Iowa Caucuses, and does respectably in New Hampshire, I have no question that there will be the resources needed to campaign in other states. We owe it to ourselves, and our county, to support the candidate that best represents our values, and who has the best chance of defeating the Republican party in November. Edwards is that candidate!

AHMIowa wrote on November 8, 2007 8:54 PM:

Contrary to dcshungu, I think this is great news. Iowans for Sensible Priorities has been getting a lot of visibility in the Progressive community in Iowa. There are a lot of cars in Iowa City at least with their "budget pie" decals. I think they will clearly focus some voters on which leading candidate is the true progressive.

If Edwards wins the Iowa Caucuses, and does respectably in New Hampshire, I have no question that there will be the resources needed to campaign in other states. We owe it to ourselves, and our county, to support the candidate that best represents our values, and who has the best chance of defeating the Republican party in November. Edwards is that candidate!

Too many "IFs" already, but Edwards' problem is that he elected to accepted public financing, so, therefore, even if he had a lot of dough -- I am not sure that he can accept donations since he'd be getting hand outs from the public trough -- he'd limited in how much he could spend both during the primaries and in the general election. In modern American politics, that is unilateral disarmament. Should he win the nomination (God forbid!), the legendary Repub smear machine would be booted up, ready to repeat what it had done to him and Kerry the last time around, except that it would be worse: Edwards would be a sitting duck while they take shot after shot at him, and he would be unable to respond -- his spending is capped!

Once he chose to accept public financing, Edwards became the least electable Dem candidate, and it does not require rocket science to figure that out... For a while, I had thought that it'd come down to Hillary v. Edwards down the stretch because I thought he might win IA and be competitive. But he won't be able to compete, even if he wins Iowa. Obama has the dough and could make this a race if Hillary does not with both Iowa and New Hampshire, which would essentially end the battle for the nomination... (It might still be over if Hillary captures IA or NH AND SC, as super-duper Tuesday would then be hers to lose).

This could turn into great news. Not just the get of the endorsement, but if this group is as strong as it sounds, the word of mouth to other caucusers from them could have an effect. If Edwards wins Iowa by a atleast 4 or more points, I think it's on. He can, and I believe WILL win the nomination coming out of an Iowa victory. In '04 Kerry went from polling around 11% support to high 40's or low 50's literally over night depending on the poll you reference. NH is the only place I think could trip him because it's only 5 days later, but I believe the momentum would be great enough. Contrary to what the media wants to say, history tells us that on the Dem side Iowa is the annointer and I don't believe this year is any different. As far as money goes, there was just a report recently on how the big money Dems are plotting ad strategy for '08. The PAC's will line up to spend against the Republicans while JRE can follow the matching funds rules and walk right in to the WH.

Edwards is a great candidate. He knows plenty of how the government works, but more importantly he knows where our country needs to go and how to get us back on track. The fact that he understands what this groups is doing shows his understanding of how we need to balance spending for the military with everything else. It is quite "sensible."

The support of Sensible Priorities is great, they have pledged to caucus in Iowa for the person who most met their goals--they have identified very specific waste in the Pentegon's budget, including but not limited to our overstock and upkeeping of nuclear weapons, as well as wasteful projects and weapons systems--not everything mind you. The idea is then we have billions of dollars to spend on other important things, like education, etc.

My husband and I have admired this group, and its founder, one of the founders of Ben & Jerry's, Ben Cohen. There really is a lot of wasted money going to keep up an arsenal of nuclear weapons, and we have enough to blow up the entire world a couple of times over, so their goals make sense.

You can watch his demonstration of it with bb's on this link. It's really eye-opening. My husband saw this demonstrated in person:

http://www.benjerry.com/americanpie/bens_bb.cfm

Reference Librarian,

. . . and Thomas Jefferson could not afford to free his own personal slaves . . .

. . . and FDR was a pompus dandy who ran on tariff issues . . .

. . . and Teddy Roosevelt was a brutish imp who killed things in Africa for kicks . . .

. . . and Andrew Jackson's boorish, common behavior inspired the choice of Democratic Party's mascot . . .

. . . and Abe Lincoln was a seven time failure who didn't serve out his full term . . .

. . . Carter instituted a national energy program and worked to eliminate the drag of debt from Veitnam that was crushing our nation while battling an antagonistic Congress . . .

. . . and George W. Bush is the son of a President and the grandson of a Senator and the fruition of Ronald Reagan's hopes and dreams for this great nation.

I am guessing your parents wasted their hard earned money on your education. You may call home and express regrets . . .

An Edwards win in Iowa would puncture the "Hilary is inevitable" bubble that our dipshit MSM likes to peddle. I'd like Edwards to take Iowa for no other reason than the fact that we could derive such pleasure from watching the corrupt and clueless media eat shit.

Keep yawning, dcshungu. Keep supporting big-corporate-money, Republican-lite candidates... right to electoral defeat in November 2008.

The only thing I am sure of is that the Dems would lose the presidetial election yet again if by some miracle (read: if you believe in Santa), Edwards manages to win the nomination. Had the guy managed to swing his home state of NC in 2004 in his and Kerry's direction, he'd be a sitting VP today, and, depending on the shape of the ship of state, he'd be the guy to beat for the nomination...

Edwards could not manage to win his own state against a very weak GWB in 2004, what makes you think that he'd be a match for Rudy in the Northeast and CA, where head-to-head match ups show him struggling and even trailing Rudy? The Dems would nominate Edwards at their own peril...Fortunately, he is a "dead man walking."

Taking public financing for the primaries does not handcuff Edwards as much as some people like to suggest (largely because the relevant laws are full of holes).

dcshungu is also being highly misleading about the general election ramifications. The spending limits apply until the candidate is nominated, namely the Democratic convention in August, but not afterwards.

Now it is true that the general election campaign effectively begins once the nominees are clear. So, there would be a gap after that point and before the convention, and Edwards would have to count on Democratic Party ads and third party ads to help fill that gap. There will be plenty of money for those ads, but the problem will be that the Edwards campaign itself will not be able to coordinate those ads. That is a significant issue, but not exactly fatal. And incidentally, McCain might be in the same position, and I still think he has a great chance to end up the GOP nominee.

But anyway, the basic point is that the claim that the GOP could just swiftboat him until November and Edwards could never respond is nonsense.

A final thought: in the end whether the Democratic candidate wins the general election is not going to be about money. Rather, it is going to be about whether the Democratic Party nominates someone who the American people want to be their President. And the Democrats already have the advantage on almost every issue, and the American people are very much in the mood for change. So the only thing the Democrats need to do is nominate someone who the voters like on a personal level, like a Reagan or Bill Clinton, and they will win.

Is Edwards another Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan (or at least as close as the Democrats can get)? I'm not sure, actually, but I think a legitimate case can be made on his behalf. And that is why he is not, and should not be, out of the running.

Piehole, I work for nobody but the people of my community (I really am a librarian). Running for office isn't a good measure of political skill--it's getting elected. Harold Stassen ran for president lots of times but no one would put him in a political hall of fame.(though in fact he won far more elections than Edwards has even run in) I agree that Jimmy Carter did accomplish some good things, the Panama Canal Treaty and the Camp David accord, as well as somethings that didn't work out too well like airline deregulation. Carter may have proposed a good energy plan, but he didn't get it enacted, which is the bottom line. That's why I think it's vital that we select someone who knows, from very hard experience, how to get good policies enacted. In short someone "entrenched in the political system", would be a pretty good idea right now.

Richard L. Adlof,

Abraham Lincoln was assassinated six weeks after being sworn in for his second term.

The cartoonist Thomas Nast invented the donkey (actually a jackass) as the Democratic Party's mascot 40 years after Andrew Jackson died.

I've probably forgotten more facts about American history than you've ever learned.

The Bus, Hillary Clinton is not supporting the Bush Administration trade policies. Here's what she's said
"I have long said that we need smart trade policies that advance labor rights, the environment, and our economic standing in the world.

I support the trade agreement with Peru. It has very strong labor and environmental protections. This agreement makes meaningful progress on advancing workers’ rights, and also levels the playing field for American workers. Most Peruvian goods already enter the U.S. duty free, but our exports to Peru have been subject to tariffs.

However, I will oppose the pending trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama. The South Korean agreement does not create a level playing field for American carmakers. I am very concerned about the history of violence against trade unionists in Colombia. And as long as the head of Panama’s National Assembly is a fugitive from justice in America, I cannot support that agreement. Accordingly, I will oppose the trade agreements with these countries." If you think opposing three out of four trade deals constitutes blind support for Bush trade policies, that's your privilege, but ain't reality based. Clinton has the most liberal voting record of any of the candidates now serving in Congress, and in fact was considerably to the left of John Edwards when he was in the Senate. As Senator Obama put very well in his interview in today's Washington Post: John wasn't this raging populist four years ago when he ran" for the previous Democratic nomination, he said. "He certainly wasn't when he ran for the U.S. Senate. He was in the U.S. Senate for six years, and as far as I can tell wasn't taking on the lobbyists and special interests. It's a matter of, do you walk the walk that you talk?" HRC has been walking the walk since she was in college. But she's been doing this as a pragmatic realist not an ideolog, which is probably why people like you aren't comfortable with her. You want to vote for someone who makes you feel good, rather than trying to elect someone who can actually accomplish something.

If he cut 15% from his haircut budget he'd still be paying $340 per.

Senator 'Govt Mandated Health Checkups' has NO shot at the nomination ... NONE. Ya know who does? The candidate who reduces taxes by 15% AND cuts 15% from the budget to cover it.

dcshungu,

Seriously, you need to start clicking through your own links. Thanks to the adjustments since 1976, the general election limits were up to $74.62 million in 2004:

http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/pubfund_limits_2004.shtml

They will be up to about $84 million in 2008. By the way, no general election candidate since the law was passed has ever refused these funds, including of course every elected President right through Bush in 2004.

That said, this may be the first year in which the candidates do opt out of public financing for the general election. But if you want to make the argument it will be necessary for the candidate to do so, you should at least get your numbers right.

dcshungu:

Edwards could not manage to win his own state against a very weak GWB in 2004, what makes you think that he'd be a match for Rudy in the Northeast and CA, where head-to-head match ups show him struggling and even trailing Rudy?

This.

In head-to-head polling against the likes of Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney, Clinton and Obama have managed to post only modest leads. Edwards, by contrast, not only bests every Republican candidate in the race, he trounces them -- by an average of twelve points.

Moreover, Edwards wasn't the Presidential candidate in 2004. Kerry was, and even though Edwards was VP candidate and NC was his home state, it was ultimately the tenor of the Kerry-Edwards campaign that made the difference. Kerry-Edwards ran a consultant-driven, Republican-lite "safe centrist" campaign in 2004 (Robert Scheer pointed out in a LA Times column that Kerry's domestic agenda in 2004 was to the right of Richard Nixon in the 1970s). Indeed, the Clinton and Obama 2008 campaigns are looking a lot like the Kerry-Edwards campaign in 2004. Safe, center, corporate, Republican lite, and a sure way to electoral defeat in 2008. As I think FDR said, if you give the people a choice between a Republican and a Republican, they'll pick the Republican every time.

Hooray for Edwards! Unlike the other Democrats (with their corporate sponsors), he has courage, conviction, and character. He refuses to back down, even in the face of paltry treatment by the media and the Republicans. He answers questions directly and honestly.

Edwards shows the type of leadership and strength of character we need in our president, and he is the most honest of the bunch. He puts principles above politics, and is the most progressive and electable of the candidates.

By giving to his campaign, you can have donations of up to $250 doubled, due to public financing.

Go, Edwards!

Fixing broken links from my previous post -- bad HTML markup on my part.

These links should now work. I hope.

Progressive Hillary, who has received the largest amount of contributions' from the military-industrial complex of ALL candidates, Democratic and Republican?

Progressive Hillary, who has been threatening nuclear strikes' in the Middle East?