A perfect Friday moment: As Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton head to Oregon to woo voters, they are also wooing a new local press corps, showering time and attention on local reporters and editors. The Oregonian gets its turn, as do daily papers in Eugene, Salem and other significant locals. But when a candidate gets to some of the smaller outlets, the questions can get downright weird.

In perhaps the strangest interview front-running Obama has ever had to go through, Willamette Week, an alternative weekly in Portland, hit on the key issues important to voters in the City of Roses. Obama told the interviewer he would stop federal agents' raids on Oregon's medical marijuana farms and he would negotiate with counties affected by a wounded timber industry.

Obama had nice things to say about the state's Republican Senator, Gordon Smith, who could face a tough battle for re-election this year. But the candidate stayed on message: "I think Gordon Smith's problem is that he rarely breaks away from George Bush and the Republican agenda that I think has done this country great damage," Obama said. "But personally I think he's a perfectly decent person." Obama professed to have no opinion on the race's Democratic primary.

To finish, the paper put the really tough question to Obama: What kind of tattoo would he have? Take a look at the transcript:

Willamette Week: If you had a tattoo, what would it be and where would you put it?

Barack Obama: Uh, I cannot imagine any circumstances in which I would get a tattoo.

W.W.: If you were under duress.

B.O.: If a gun was put to my head?

W.W.: Yes.

B.O.: Then I suppose I'd have to have [his wife] Michelle's name tattooed somewhere very discreet.

Funny enough, in the twenty minutes the paper got with Clinton, early in April, she too indicated she would only get a tattoo under duress. "If I was under duress? Gosh, I have been asked millions of questions, and no one has ever asked me that. I have so little interest in having a tattoo, that I just am going to have to ponder this," Clinton said. "It can be really, really small, right? I think it would be really, really small, like under a microscope, and it would say 'love.'" Clinton declined to say where her body art would be featured.

We wonder if either candidate has seriously thought about a plan to fight what must apparently be the rampant rash of vicious gangs marauding through American streets putting guns to people's heads and forcing them to get tattoos.

Posted by Reid Wilson at 02:00 PM | Email Author | Permalink

After flipping through hundreds of Federal Election Commission reports detailing the daily lives of every candidate under the sun, we've come to a close. Check back on the posts we've had up over the last week, inspecting the hot House races of the cycle:

The Northeast, the Mid-Atlantic, Pennsylvania, The South, Florida, the Ohio Valley, the Dust Bowl, the Rocky Mountains, the Desert West, the West Coast, the Northern Mississippi, and the Great Lakes, both Western and Eastern, along with the House campaign committees.

Taking a gander at all those House races means there are bound to be a few massive glaring errors, and for those Politics Nation apologizes. Thanks to everyone who pointed out, for example:

-- That Lou Barletta, running against Rep. Paul Kanjorski in Pennsylvania, is the mayor of Hazelton, not Scranton.

-- That some of the numbers in New Jersey reflected the cash on hand statistics for the end of 2007, not for the end of the First Quarter in 2008. In New Jersey's Third District, State Senator John Adler finished March with $1 million in the bank after raising $1.17 million, $500,000 more than we'd reported. In the Seventh District, 2006 candidate and Assemblywoman Linda Stender has $845,000 remaining after raising nearly $1.05 million. Our numbers for two Republicans in each of those districts were accurate.

-- That Indiana's primary is on May 6, not May 13 (You'd think, with all the presidential hoopla, that we would have remembered that.).

-- That Ashwin Madia, the Democratic nominee for Congress in Minnesota's Third District, could use a better descriptor than "Democratic activist." Madia is a lawyer, an Iraq war veteran and not exactly the biggest Democrat in the history of the world, either. Roll Call's Shira Toeplitz pointed us to this interview, with Minnesota Public Radio, in which Madia admits that he voted for President Bush in 2000 after telling the same station that he voted for Al Gore that year.

-- That Bob Onder, the candidate for Congress in Missouri's 9th District who has raised the most money to date, is in fact a Republican, not a Democrat.

-- That Wayne Parker, a Republican, is running for Congress in Alabama's Fifth District. Parker filed his organizational paperwork with the FEC on April 4, and we just plain missed it. He raised $177,000 in the first few days of his candidacy.

Other mistakes we made? Candidates we missed? Feel free to email us your comments and complaints.

Posted by Reid Wilson at 02:00 PM | Email Author | Permalink

Despite just eleven governor's mansions being on the ballot this year, Washington-based committees that will help their parties defend and contest those seats are raising record amounts of money. Beyond this year, when just four contests are expected to be competitive, both parties are already looking ahead to 2010 when three dozen seats will be up for election.

The Democratic Governors' Association will report raising $5.7 million when they file first quarter reports next week. That leaves the committee with $10.5 million in the bank, more than they have ever held after the initial three months of the year. In a statement, DGA finance chairman Martin O'Malley, governor of Maryland, predicted the committee would raise more this year than it ever has. "We are off to a great start, and we're not slowing down," O'Malley said.

But officials at the Republican Governors' Association are also confident in their fundraising abilities, and the committee will report receipts of about $1.3 million more than their Democratic rivals. The RGA raised just over $7 million in the first quarter, and will show $14.6 million in the bank when they file their reports with the FEC. "It says a lot about the RGA that we're outraising the Democrats when they have the strong upper hand," Mississippi Governor and RGA finance chair Haley Barbour said in a statement.

The two committees will likely spend their money battling over open seats in North Carolina, where Democrat Mike Easley is term-limited, and Missouri, where Republican Matt Blunt surprised observers by dropping his bid for re-election earlier this year. Two incumbents -- Washington State Democrat Christine Gregoire and Indiana Republican Mitch Daniels -- will also face tough fights to keep their jobs.

Posted by Reid Wilson at 01:30 PM | Email Author | Permalink

Meeting reporters at Democratic National Committee headquarters yesterday, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chairman Chris Van Hollen and Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee chair Chuck Schumer strove to tamp down expectations of optimism, casting their battle to extend their majorities as a battle against history.

Only once in recent memory has a party that benefited from a wave election gone on to win seats two years later, the two pointed out; after Democrats picked up 49 seats after Watergate, in 1974, the party netted an additional seat two years later. But after waves in pro-Democratic waves 1982 and 1992, Republicans took back a large number of seats the next time out.

This year, Van Hollen said, "We think that we are in a position to beat history." Democrats have already picked up a seat, after a special election victory in Illinois last month, but the party promises to stay on offense. "The big story we've seen in this cycle is, rather than just having to circle the wagons and play defense, we were able to put together a plan and stay very much on offense," he said.

House Democratic strategists contend they will target between 45 and 50 Republican-held seats, and combined with as many as 25 Democratic seats they will have to defend, as many as 75 seats could be seriously contested come November. That helps the party with the cash advantage, and Van Hollen, pointing to what is likely to be a four- or five-to-one cash on hand edge when reports come out later this month, said his party is "comfortably ahead" in that race.

Schumer characterized the 2008 contests as a potentially "tectonic" election, akin to the 1932 Democratic sweep and Republican gains in 1980. Those epic contests come when citizens' basic relationship to government changes, and Schumer said he believes the country is near that point.

But overconfidence is a concern, Schumer said, and Democrats can't risk getting ahead of themselves. "You don't want to get too enthusiastic at this time," he said, proceeding to rattle off states where he says his party will win big. Democratic candidates lead their Republican counterparts in five GOP-held states in DSCC polling, Schumer said, pointing to Virginia, New Hampshire, Colorado, New Mexico and Alaska. Three other Republican Senators, Maine's Susan Collins, Oregon's Gordon Smith and Norm Coleman of Minnesota, are "within reach."

Perhaps most importantly, only one Democratic incumbent is in real trouble, Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu. In five states President Bush carried in 2004 -- Iowa, South Dakota, West Virginia, Montana and Arkansas -- Democratic incumbents face only nominal opposition (Arkansas Democrat Mark Pryor will not even face a Republican opponent in the fall.).

Farther down the target list, Schumer characterized Republican incumbents in North Carolina, Mississippi and Kentucky as within "striking range," and he talked up candidates less likely to win in Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Georgia, Idaho and Texas.

Van Hollen and Schumer rejected the notion that John McCain would play a positive role for Republican candidates, arguing that voters want fundamental change. "McCain is not going to be able to be a change candidate, given his record and his views," Schumer said. "The war in Iraq is an albatross around his neck." On their party's side, both said either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama would help out their downballot candidates, "with the one caveat that we make sure that both candidates stay positive," Van Hollen warned.

And both chairmen warned of the possibility of involvement from independent organizations running issue ads on behalf of Republican candidates. Singling out one such group, Van Hollen said the assault had already begun. "Freedom's Watch, and others, have expressed now more than an interest in getting involved" in contests, he said, pointing to Ohio, where the 501(c)(4) organization ran ads slamming the Democratic candidate. Schumer pointed to ads running on behalf of Minnesota Senator Norm Coleman by a Colorado-based group, as well.

But perhaps the biggest concern the party should have is the possibility of getting ahead of itself. Democrats are being careful when playing the expectations game in the next contest, coming next month in Louisiana where State Rep. Don Cazayoux has a strong chance to defeat Republican former State Rep. Woody Jenkins in a special election. "We have a very good candidate," Van Hollen said, referring to Cazayoux. "We're clearly the underdogs in a district like that."

Posted by Reid Wilson at 11:30 AM | Email Author | Permalink

More than forty Democratic candidates released a joint plan yesterday promising to work for legislation calling for an immediate draw down of troops in Iraq, the Washington Post's Paul Kane reports. While the group stopped short of setting an exact date for withdrawal, their plan calls for the U.S. to leave only a security detail to protect the U.S. embassy.

The focus on Iraq runs counter to most Democrats' assertions that the economy will be the number-one issue voters are thinking of. The challengers' plan goes farther than most other top Democrats, Kane writes, who prefer to leave troops in the country to train new Iraqi forces.

Led by Washington State Democrat Darcy Burner, who lost a close battle with Republican Rep. Dave Reichert in 2006, the coalition of challengers is made up of hot prospects and longshots alike. Maryland Democrat Donna Edwards, who beat incumbent Democrat Al Wynn in February, is almost guaranteed to serve in Congress. Chellie Pingree, running to replace Rep. Tom Allen in Maine, leads her primary field by a wide margin in a safely Democratic seat as well.

Other candidates are, like Burner, top recruits in Republican-held districts. Eric Massa, the New York Democrat, came up just short against Republican Rep. Randy Kuhl, and Jill Derby, chair of the Nevada Democratic Party, ran a stronger than expected campaign against freshman Republican Dean Heller in the state's northern Second District.

But the group has more than its share of candidates national Democrats are rather less excited about. Former Iowa state legislator Ed Fallon, who finished third in the state's gubernatorial primary last year but ran a stronger than expected campaign from the left, is running in a primary against long-time Democratic incumbent Leonard Boswell. The Des Moines-based district is more moderate than Boswell's big winning percentages indicate, giving Republicans a shot if the seat suddenly features no incumbent. And former Rep. Leslie Byrne, running to replace retiring Republican Tom Davis in Northern Virginia, is many national strategists' second choice, behind Fairfax County Council chair Gerry Connolly.

Four Senate candidates joined the 38 House challengers endorsing the plan. In Oregon, where the Democratic primary to take on Republican incumbent Gordon Smith has moved decidedly left, both State House Speaker Jeff Merkley and attorney Steve Novick have signed on, as have longer-shot candidates in Kentucky and Tennessee.

Burner, who has long made Iraq the centerpiece of her campaign platform, also secured backing for the plan from Major General Paul Eaton, a retired officer who served in prominent positions in Iraq, and Lawrence Korb, who served as Assistant Secretary of Defense under Ronald Reagan.

The group launched the proposal, which they hope capitalizes on continuing voter discontent with the five-year old war, as violence again erupted throughout Iraq. Security forces have issued a three-day curfew in Baghdad to gain control of the situation, while fighting in the southern city of Basra, once the domain of British forces before they withdrew, rages between Shiite militias and government forces, CNN reported today. Increased fighting in the country's capitol city, especially in Sadr City, is bringing U.S. troops into harm's way more often, the Washington Post also reports.

A recent analysis from the Pew Research Center shows public opinion is decidedly mixed over Iraq. While a strong majority says the decision to go into the country was the wrong idea, though the same percentage say the war is going either well or poorly, at 48% each. 49% say the U.S. should bring troops home as soon as possible, while 47% say troops should stay in the country until Iraq is stabilized.

Still, Americans largely trust Democrats more than Republicans to handle Iraq. The Pew survey showed 47% choosing the Democratic Party, while 37% said Republicans would better handle the situation. Of twelve issues surveyed, Republicans led only on handling of terrorist threats. If Democrats, and particularly the 42 challengers backing the plan for getting out of the country, can stick to a message about Iraq while avoiding GOP talk of terrorism, they could be successful in November.

But maybe national party leaders, who have focused more on the economy of late, have a point: The party's 10-point advantage on Iraq is not nearly as strong as its 53%-34% edge on issues surrounding the economy.

Posted by Reid Wilson at 11:00 AM | Email Author | Permalink

The host committee for the 2008 Democratic National Convention in Denver has missed a key fundraising goal, the Rocky Mountain News reports today. The committee, which was supposed to come up with $28 million by yesterday, stands about $5 million short, according to a spokesman.

It is the second time Denver has missed a deadline, making some nervous the party might not reach the $40.6 million goal by mid-June. Even that figure, the spokesman said, is probably short of the $45 to $50 million convention organizers will need to operate the four-day event without going into debt. Those watching convention fundraising suggest the shortfall is caused by the lack of a Democratic nominee.

Still, the missed deadline is not likely to have a dramatic impact, as convention committees routinely miss deadlines. The $23 million raised is almost twice what organizers had pulled in by the end of March, 2004, when the committee setting up the Boston convention had raised only $12.7 million.

Republicans also find themselves in better position than four years ago, with $15.3 million raised through December 31, ahead of the $13.5 million they reported at the end of 2003. Both committees will file new FEC reports on April 15, just after the first quarter ends.

Posted by Reid Wilson at 02:00 PM | Email Author | Permalink

A new report from the Federal Election Commission shows House Democrats were more generous with their own campaign cash than House Republicans in the first thirteen months of the cycle. The transfers, from candidates' campaign committees to the DCCC and the NRCC, are just a part of the large cash disadvantage Republicans face.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which had nearly $35.1 million in the bank through January 31, accumulated the money with the assistance of about $18.4 million from their caucus members. Top donors included House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who kicked in $785,000; Whip Jim Clyburn, with $770,000; Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, who donated $685,000; committee chairs Charlie Rangel and Barney Frank, with $685,000 and $550,000, respectively; caucus chairman Rahm Emanuel, who gave $475,000; and current DCCC chairman Chris Van Hollen, who donated $435,000 to his own cause.

Those numbers do not include Democratic members' pledges to raise additional funds for the DCCC. Depending on their position in the House, members have to raise additional funds for the committee, ranging from less than $100,000 to tens of millions of dollars. How much each member has to raise, though, is a closely-guarded secret.

Republicans lagged far behind Democratic contributions, with just $10.6 million in donations to the beleaguered NRCC. Minority Leader John Boehner dropped $845,000 from his own campaign account, while Reps. Dave Camp ($480,000), Wally Herger ($300,000), Kay Granger ($265,000) and Cliff Sterns ($262,500) wrote big checks. All four are said to be seeking prime committee slots. Retiring Reps. Jim McCrery and Jim Saxton helped out, donating $490,000 and $275,000 from their soon-to-be-shuttered campaign accounts.

While Republicans have a smaller caucus than Democrats, their average member is still giving far less than the average Democrat. Democrats are ponying up just shy of $80,000 per member, while Republicans are giving about $53,500 each. What is more impressive is that most Democratic freshmen, especially those facing tough re-election battles, are forgiven dues for at least their first term.

Boehner, who has worked hard to keep his caucus together, has grown increasingly frustrated with some members. At a GOP caucus meeting last week, Boehner told members to get off their "dead asses," as Politico's Patrick O'Connor reported, to help the NRCC raise money. NRCC chair Tom Cole and minority whip Roy Blunt also urged members to help the committee raise money for the party's March 12 fundraising dinner, O'Connor wrote.

Even if the NRCC makes its $7.5 million goal, and even if members begin handing over more sizable checks to the national party, Republicans have a long way to go to catch up. The NRCC reported just $6.4 million in the bank after January 31, nearly $29 million behind Democrats.

Democrats are raising more money than Republicans virtually across the board, and compared with 2005, the last pre-election year, and 2003, the last pre-presidential year, Democrats are performing better than they were and showing increases that outpace the GOP. In 2007, the DCCC's cash receipts grew 57%, while the committee's receipts grew 136% over 2003. Republicans, meanwhile, saw their fundraising shrink by 22% from 2005 and 31% over 2003.

Posted by Reid Wilson at 10:00 AM | Email Author | Permalink

The campaign wing of the House Republican caucus narrowly outraised its Democratic counterpart in January, though the NRCC remains well behind the DCCC in total cash in the bank. FEC reports released yesterday show a minor victory for NRCC chair Tom Cole, but DCCC chief Chris Van Hollen retains bragging rights.

In January, the NRCC raised almost $3.8 million and has a bank account of $6.4 million. They retain a debt of slightly over $2.3 million. The DCCC raised just over $3.7 million and spent much more than Republicans. Democrats have $35.5 million in the bank and $1.7 million in debts and obligations.

Senate Republicans are in relatively better position with regard to their Democratic opponents. The NRSC raised $3.5 million in January, banking $1.2 million of that for a total bank account of $13.2 million. But the DSCC raised $3.9 million last month, a faster clip than the NRSC, and ended with $30.5 million cash on hand.

While Senate Republicans enjoy a smaller disadvantage than their House counterparts, their fundraising pace has been slower than each of the other three committees in recent months. They banked more than Democrats last month by spending $600,000 less than the DSCC.

While both Democratic campaign wings are easily outpacing their GOP counterparts in money in the bank, Howard Dean's Democratic National Committee fell farther behind Mike Duncan's Republican National Committee last month. The DNC raised $5.76 million in January and banked just $60,000, ending the month with $3 million in the bank and a $250,000 debt. The RNC, meanwhile, pulled in $11.8 million and kept more than $21.7 million in the bank.

In total, Democrats have a big fundraising advantage. Together, the three committees have $69 million in the bank, while Republican committees have $41.3 million lying around.

Posted by Reid Wilson at 11:00 AM | Email Author | Permalink

Excerpts from Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius' Democratic response to President Bush's State of the Union:

"In this time, normally reserved for the partisan response, I hope to offer you something more."

"An American Response."

"A national call to action on behalf of the struggling families in the heartland, and across this great country. A wakeup call to Washington, on behalf of a new American majority, that time is running out on our opportunities to meet our challenges and solve our problems."

On the Economy:

"Our struggling economy requires urgent and immediate action, and then sustained attention. Families can't pay their bills. They are losing their jobs, and now are threatened with losing their homes."

"We heard last week and again tonight that Congress and the President are acting quickly, on a temporary, targeted stimulus package. That is encouraging. But you and I know that a temporary fix is only the first step toward meeting our challenges and solving our problems."

On the Need to Work Together:

"There is a chance Mr. President, in the next 357 Days, to get real results, and give the American people renewed optimism that their challenges are the top priority. Working together, working hard, committing to results, we can get the job done."

"In fact, over the last year, the new Democratic majority in Congress has begun to move us in a new direction, with bipartisan action on significant initiatives to bolster our national security, raise the minimum wage, and reduce the costs of college loans."

"These are encouraging first steps. But there is still more to be done."

On Charting a New Course:

"The new Democratic majority of Congress and the vast majority of Americans are ready - ready to chart a new course. If more Republicans in Congress stand with us this year, we won't have to wait for a new President to restore America's role in the world, and fight a more effective war on terror."

On Iraq:

"The last five years have cost us dearly - in lives lost; in thousands of wounded warriors whose futures may never be the same; in challenges not met here at home because our resources were committed elsewhere. America's foreign policy has left us with fewer allies and more enemies."

On Working for the Common Good:

"I know government can work to benefit the people we serve, because I see it every day, not only here in Kansas, but in states across the country. I know government can work, Mr. President, because like you, I grew up in a family committed to public service. My father and my father in law both served in Congress - one a Republican and one a Democrat. They had far more in common than the issues that divided them - a love for their country that led them from military service to public service. A lifetime of working for the common good, making sacrifices so their children and grandchildren could have a better future."

On Transforming America:

"These are uncertain times, but with strength and determination, we can meet the challenges together. If Washington can work together, so quickly, on a short-term fix for families caught in the financial squeeze, then we can work together to transform America."

Posted by Reid Wilson at 05:50 PM | Email Author | Permalink

In 2006, as Democrats won congressional districts across the country that for years were not thought to be competitive, few metropolitan areas provided greater political theater than the Philadelphia suburbs. Pennsylvania's 6th and 8th Congressional Districts were decided by a grand total of 2 points, while in the 7th District, the home of the incumbent's daughter was raided by the FBI less than a month before the November election.

It is still unclear how competitive these districts will be in 2008, but both parties have been scouring their bases for legitimate challengers. The Philadelphia suburbs have been trending Democratic--John Kerry and Al Gore each won all three districts by slim margins--even as these three districts were represented in Congress by Republicans prior to 2006.

In Republican Congressman Jim Gerlach's 6th District, Democrats have had a laundry list of potential challengers turn down a bid, including Christopher Casey, the brother of Senator Bob Casey. The district has been competitive since its inception after the 2002 redistricting. Gerlach barely avoided a loss once again in 2006, winning by a 51%-49% margin for the third straight year. Democrat Lois Murphy, who lost to Gerlach in 2004 and 2006, has declined to run again. But Democrats reportedly have not given up on Casey yet.

In the 7th District, freshman Democratic Congressman Joe Sestak received late campaign advertising in 2006 that money cannot buy. The FBI raid on the home of incumbent Republican Curt Weldon's daughter was caught on film by local news media and shown across the country. This allowed Sestak to breeze into Congress with an 8-point victory. But the retired 2-star Navy admiral just got his first credible challenger in W. Craig Williams, the now-former assistant U.S. attorney from Philadelphia and a veteran of the Gulf War. Williams was endorsed January 15 by the Delaware County GOP Committee.

Democrat Patrick Murphy, the youngest member of the congressional freshman class of 2006, defeated one-term incumbent Mike Fitzpatrick by a margin of 1,518 votes. This Bucks County-centered district had been represented in Congress by a Republican since 1992. At least three Republicans are currently running for the chance to take on Murphy, who is the only veteran of the Iraq war serving in Congress. One of the candidates is Tom Manion, a retired Colonel in the Marine Corps Reserve and the father of a soldier who died in Iraq. Manion already has the support of Fitzpatrick and Bucks County GOP Committee chairman Harry Fawkes. And with Murphy winning by such a small margin in 2006, the NRCC is likely to step in with financial support as well.

National Democrats certainly see a chance to pick up a seat in the 6th District, but holding on to the 7th and 8th districts may be equally challenging.

--Kyle Trygstad

Posted by Kyle Trygstad at 11:25 AM | Email Author | Permalink

The labor movement has undergone significant turmoil in recent years, as major national unions have split, enrollment figures have dropped and the movement has seen its influence in Democratic circles wane. The Nevada caucuses, partially intended to give labor a bigger voice in picking a president, have only increased the tumult.

Barack Obama's endorsement from the Culinary Workers' union has given other labor groups in the state the impetus to work harder for their own candidate, the Las Vegas Sun reports today. Despite the impression given in non-stop press coverage of the Culinary Workers' nod, they are far from the only union in the state. Clinton is backed by eight labor groups, while John Edwards enjoys support from four. Obama has two others.

Even those who back the same candidate are targeting each other. Nevada's SEIU chapter, which announced its backing of Obama the same day as the Culinary Workers, shouted down a suggestion of a joint press conference, the Sun writes, opting instead to get their news out first and beat their rivals.

Now, Nevada's teachers' union, which has not endorsed, has filed a lawsuit to force caucus-goers to meet in their home precincts, stripping caucus locations from some Strip casinos, where culinary workers would have access to them on caucus night. It's a direct shot at the casino workers' organization, which brushes the attack aside as targeting the biggest fish in the pond. The state AFL-CIO is neutral, but other unions in the state back the teachers.

The Culinary Workers backed Democratic gubernatorial nominee Dina Titus in 2006, though they had backed former Republican Governor Kenny Guinn twice. Titus herself is backing Hillary Clinton. A split among labor voters will keep the primary competitive, but should they fail to come together by the time the general rolls around, Democratic hopes of finally winning a state that's been trending their way but has remained just out of reach might be dashed.

Posted by Reid Wilson at 11:00 AM | Email Author | Permalink

Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius will offer the Democratic response to President Bush's State of the Union address, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced today. Sebelius, in her second term as the Democratic governor of an overwhelmingly Republican state, won re-election with 58% of the vote in 2006.

The American people "demand leadership focused squarely on solving our problems, making the most of our opportunities, and moving America forward," Sebelius said in a statement. "That is exactly the kind of leadership we've demonstrated in Kansas, and I am honored to share that example with the American people in response to the President's State of the Union message."

The Democratic leaders also announced Texas State Senator Leticia Van de Putte would offer the Spanish-language version of the Democratic response. Bush's speech is set for January 28. The last two Democratic responders have hailed from Virginia; Governor Tim Kaine delivered the response in January 2006, while Senator Jim Webb spoke in January of 2007.

Posted by Reid Wilson at 04:15 PM | Email Author | Permalink

Time for a year-end look at five moments that fundamentally altered the way the Democratic race has played out:

5. September 26 -- Edwards accepts public financing. Casting it as a move to ensure openness and a way to shut out lobbyists and special interests, John Edwards declared in late Spetember that he would accept public financing in his bid for the Democratic nomination. The decision gave him access to millions he might not otherwise have raised, but it also severely curtailed spending. Edwards, once seen as the obvious yin to Hillary Clinton's yang, has been marginalized to some degree by Barack Obama. And while Clinton and Obama each raised upwards of $75 million in the first three quarters of the year, Edwards has struggled in a distant third place.

Edwards' decision hurt him in several ways. Aside from curtailed spending in early primary states he needed to win, he also lost support among many of his one-time fans in the liberal blogosphere. Kos, for one, said that the acceptance of public money meant Edwards was not viable, and though he maintained good relations with the netroots, Edwards needed them to be for him in a much stronger way.

4. August 4 -- Clinton attends YearlyKos. The liberal netroots, who in 2006 helped raise million for the Democratic Party and claims responsibility for victories by several second-tier Democratic congressional hopefuls who pulled off big upsets, had their knives out for Hillary Clinton early. Unhappy with triangulation and furious with what they saw as timid moderation, the netroots wanted an unabashed progressive who would fight for their cause; it is little wonder that John Edwards had won online straw polls at DailyKos for more than a year.

But Clinton decided to attend the largest gathering of liberal bloggers of the year, showing up at YearlyKos in Chicago and held a breakout session to get to know a new set of opinion makers in the Democratic column. Clinton's moves to placate the netroots -- communications director Howard Wolfson fought Bill O'Reilly over YearlyKos; Clinton earned the endorsement of netroots hero Joe Wilson and announced it on a conference call with bloggers; in the Senate, she worked on a bill to provide paper trails in voting machines -- had a hugely important effect: The netroots still didn't like her, but at least they didn't hate her.

Whether it was DailyKos or the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee that got certain candidates elected is subject to debate. But it was certainly the netroots that brought down Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman in his primary last year. By making sure lefty bloggers did not hate her, Clinton escaped what could have been a blogosphere-wide effort to bring her down.

3. October 30 -- Clinton stumbles in Philadelphia. In early debates, Hillary Clinton provided no zingers, no great lines and no winning moments. But she was the front-runner, and because she did not lose, she won. Again and again, Obama, Edwards and others tried and failed to land a punch. It was left to Tim Russert, moderating a debate in Philadelphia the day before Halloween, to throw Clinton off her game.

Clinton seemed on her way to another flawless debate performance until Russert asked her whether she agreed with New York Governor Eliot Spitzer's decision to grant driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. Clinton hemmed and hawed, offering what her opponents criticized as two answers in two minutes. The sheen began to come off the impenitrable armor of the inevitable candidate.

2. November 10 -- Obama shines at Iowa Dem dinner. Fewer than two weeks after the debate in Philadelphia, Clinton had the chance to right the ship. The Iowa Democratic Party's Jefferson Jackson Dinner presented the opportunity to give a big speech, fire up the crowd and show organizational strength. But Clinton's efforts were outstripped, again, by Obama.

Clinton, speaking second-to-last, delivered a solid speech ripe with red meat for her fans crowded into an old hockey arena in downtown Des Moines. Obama, speaking last, put every candidate to shame with what many considered his best speech since his address to the 2004 Democratic National Convention. And while Clinton had many friends in the audience, Obama had more -- Joe Biden made light by saying hello to Iowa and hello to Chicago.

Riding high in national polls, leading big in Iowa and New Hampshire, Clinton's Philadelpia stumble opened a window through which Obama entered at the Jefferson Jackson Dinner. Now, Clinton's ten-point lead in Iowa has turned into a tie in the latest RCP Iowa Average. Her huge lead in New Hampshire has also evaporated, and while she leads the latest RCP New Hampshire Average, she has trailed Obama in recent polls. Clinton has even seen her national lead shrink.

1. January 16 -- Obama files exploratory committee. Conventional wisdom in 2006 and before was that Hillary Clinton would run away with the Democratic nomination. It was to be less a campaign than a coronation. But with the entry of Barack Obama, a freshman senator who nonetheless enjoyed unbelievable support, a hefty fundraising capability and the aura of one who could do no wrong, the calculus fundamentally changed.

Clinton's team already anticipated John Edwards' angle -- he would cast himself as the outsider versus Clinton, the ultimate insider. But Obama was more of an outsider than Edwards. He was new, fresh, and called for a fundamental change in the American political system in a way that Edwards simply couldn't match. The Clinton machine was seemingly blindsided, especially after Obama began drawing crowds numbering in the tens of thousands to rallies. His entry sucked oxygen out of the room, dooming second-tier candidates to also-ran status, a fate even Edwards might face.

Obama's audacity of hope, a theme to which he has stuck throughout the campaign, and the sheer audacity of a freshman senator running against a party legend, changed the Democratic race more than any candidate's entry -- save, perhaps, that of Al Gore -- could have.

The Democratic race is much more stable than the GOP race -- unlike yesterday, today our top five deals with just three of the candidates. In all likelihood, the race is still Clinton's to lose. But given the momentum Obama has built, thanks in large part to the Jefferson Jackson Dinner and Clinton's weak debate performance in Philadelphia, he has the opportunity to steal the nomination.

No matter who wins, Obama's was the game-changing campaign, and Clinton has to hope that she will either get her momentum back or that Obama's charge is just too little, too late.

Posted by Reid Wilson at 09:02 AM | Email Author | Permalink

Three new polls in three very different states out today show not everything is rosy for Democrats. It's been a difficult year for three elected officials, which could lead to opportunities for Republicans down the road.

In Nevada, a lesson is rapidly emerging: It does not pay to be Senate Democratic leader. A Mason-Dixon poll, conducted 12/3-5 for the Las Vegas Review Journal, shows just 41% of the 625 registered voters think Sen. Harry Reid is doing an excellent or good job, while 58% say his job performance is fair or poor. That's about the same as unpopular Governor Jim Gibbons, a Republican, who clocked in at a 41% to 54% margin.

Is it bad to be a Republican leader? Or is it just better to be a few steps down the leadership chain? John Ensign probably doesn't care, as long as the NRSC chief remains popular in the Silver State. He enjoys a 57% excellent or good rating, while 40% rate him as fair or poor.

In New York, a Quinnipiac University poll taken just before Eliot Spitzer's one-year anniversary as governor demonstrates his difficult year. Only 37% of the 1,083 respondents in the poll, taken 12/4-10, approved of the way Spitzer is doing his job, while 48% disapprove. Independents are slightly less favorably disposed to Spitzer, by a 35%-49% margin. 21% say things have gotten worse while Spitzer has been governor, while just 7% say things are getting better.

By contrast, the state's two Senators, Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer, are very popular. Even though she's on the presidential campaign trail, 64% approve of Clinton's job performance, while 59% like the job Schumer is doing. 29% disapprove of Clinton, while 22% disapprove of Schumer.

In neighboring New Jersey, the news isn't much better. Quinnipiac surveyed 1,085 registered voters there, between 12/5-9, and found that Governor Jon Corzine has just a 46% to 43% approval rating, while only 38% are satisfied with the situation in New Jersey. 62% say they are dissatisfied.

Corzine leads a generic Republican by a 41% to 31% margin, though just 44% say he deserves re-election and 43% say he does not. Senator Frank Lautenberg, whose seat comes up for re-election next year, has a 42% job approval rating, with 33% disapprove. Before Republicans get too excited, though, they should look at recent history. Lautenberg has never been the most popular senator, and neither have his seatmates, including Corzine, Sen. Bob Menendez and former Sen. Robert Torricelli.

Still, every time Republicans target one of the seats, sinking millions into ultra-expensive Philadelphia and New York City media markets, they come up short. After State Sen. Tom Kean Jr. lost to Menendez last year, Republicans might be shy about going after Lautenberg too aggressively next year.

Posted by Reid Wilson at 03:30 PM | Email Author | Permalink