Edwards is the candidate of the hopeless poor and the middle class, while the two other top candidates talk generalities and are more or less Rockefeller Republicans. Edwards is the straight arrow while the other two are triangulaters par excellence.

There are perhaps too many diaries about Edwards at dKos, but not nearly enough at other progressive sites.  

People can't truly evaluate the full slate of candidates if the candidates are not being fully covered.

Edwards and Richardon are the only two Democrats I'm aware of who have been to all 99 counties and having lived in the very hinterlands for many years of my life, I can tell you that makes a huge difference. You have to keep in mind what people think in Des Moines is not necessarily what people think in the rest of the state. I do not hear many people supporting Hillary Clinton in my area. When discussing candidates, her name often isn't even mentioned.

I have seen every candidate except Dodd, and most in a small group setting. Based on that, I am supporting Richardson and at this point Edwards is my number 2 in the unlikely event that Richardson isn't viable in my precinct.

With all due respect to Iowa, I think it's kind of ridiculous that 6% of its Democrats could decide the nominee, so I'd be happy to see an Edwards win because that would seem to guarantee the rest of the country gets a say.  I'm sick of the media coverage of the primary, but I would like to see it go until February 5th.  We should all get a say in the nominee (and I've said that even when Clinton was leading).

I think any of the three could win, but it does seem that Obama and Clinton need to bring new groups of folks to the caucuses and I'm always doubtful when folks have to do that.  How many presidential elections have there been where the Democrat was going to bring out some enormous number of young voters only to have it not really happen or, if it did happen, have it offset by more voters of all ages showing up.  If Clinton can bring out women, that would be a terrific sign.  Same thing for Obama and youth.  I'll believe it when I see it for both of them.

Here's a guy who paid his dues, worked to pull himself out of the working class.  He wasn't the best athlete, and he wasn't the best scholar, he did it through hard work, and he deserves to enjoy the fruits of his labor. He wasn't the best lawyer, because if he had been, Edwards would have ended up working for corporate America, because corporate America makes a point of buying up all the best lawyers, they like to win.

So Edwards had to travel a more difficult route on his road to success, and he's left the middle class far behind on that journey.  Unfortunately for his prospects as the People's representative, he has achieved elite status in America, and in America there's no going back.  He didn't decide to dedicate himself to public life in his youth, he was converted by tragedy, and I'm always skeptical of those who have been converted.  George Bush was one of the converted.  

Basically what I'm saying is that the path you choose from the beginning, and your ability to hold to that path is a measure of character.  Those who look down at the road they're on at some point in their life, and choose to go off in a different direction, for good or ill, there is a measure of inconsistency with such people, a measure of doubt within themselves, doubt about who they are and what they should be doing with their lives.  I don't condemn such individuals, such change certainly takes courage, but I don't want them figuring out who they are on my time, as my representative.

When I look at John Edwards, I see a guy who says all the right things, and is apparently sincere, but I also see a guy who seems to have something to prove, to himself and those around him.  And I don't have time for that and I don't think the people have time for that either, because that's a personal journey that detracts from your commitment to the people.  I believe that within a democracy, if a leader is to have any hope of achieving true greatness within this context, then the interests of the people must at some early point in their lives become the paramount concern.

I think Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi were such examples, as was Abraham Lincoln and John Kennedy, their commitment to the people led ultimately to their own destruction, and that's what you have to be prepared to accept, that you will likely end up sacrificing your very life when you make this commitment to the people. All of these men had great ambition, but those personal ambitions were by necessity shaped and molded around the People's interests, and their good.  I believe such commitment from our leaders is all important in democracy.  I see this quality in Barack Obama, I believe he has the potential to be such a leader, and unfortunately I honestly just don't see that potential in John Edwards or Hillary Clinton.

The people of a democracy are demanding and ravenously all-consuming bunch, we selfishly want it all from our leaders.  We expect them to give their last full measure of devotion to us, and place the concerns of their own family and themselves well behind our collective need. It's not fair, and it's not kind, but that's the way it is, and in my view it's the only way you can keep true democracy alive.  The system, by its very nature, at some point requires the ultimate sacrifice, it requires the blood of true patriots to keep the tree of liberty growing and vital. And this is the very thing that makes democracy superior to all other forms of government, the willingness of individuals to lay down their lives for the survival of an ideal, a belief.  This sacrifice must be made within the halls of government just as it is on the battlefield.  In fact the willingness to make that sacrifice by a president and the lowliest meanest number of our society are mutually dependent upon one another.  It is the willingness of the individual to sacrifice that at the end of the day makes us equal, perhaps more than any other attribute.

 Unfortunately the Democratic Party has been unable to produce such a leader in recent times, and the people know this, and that's why we have refused to get behind the candidates the party continues to present us with, and that's why the Republicans have succeeded where we have failed.  Their candidates have come closer to meeting the requisite requirements of sacrifice and belief, albeit a warped and distorted vision which is hardly recognizable. But so thirsty are the people for a drink of the cool clear waters of genuine leadership, that when deprived of it for so long like men lost in the desert, we find ourselves willing to drink any polluted swill presented before us, so desperate are we to have that thirst satiated.

George Bush may be a pathetic excuse for a leader, but he at least appeared to be a candidate willing to make the requisite personal sacrifices required by the people.  Just take a look at him these days, look how he has aged over the last seven years, the burden has put at least 20 years on the man.  Unfortunately his vision for America was one that served the interests of a very small minority, a minority which I have no doubt feel they have done quite well by him.  He did exactly what those who put him in office wanted him to do, while the interests of the majority and the nation were sacrificed.  

But their time is quickly coming to a close, and now it's our turn to put a candidate in office who will do what is best for the majority of Americans and the interests of the whole nation, and we cannot afford to put anyone in office whose commitment is anything other than absolute.

Obama 08

The "lower tier" may not get the coverage, but don't believe that people who caucus aren't listening to them. Even with the holidays, even with all the school events for kids, even with the demands of their jobs, people are going and people are listening, people are researching and confronting the candidates with their records and asking tough questions.

I really think it's sad that the media isn't covering all the candidates so the rest of the country can see that the upper tier and lower tier were created based on amount of money raised and not necessarily on the quality of the candidate.  

The benefit of being in Iowa is meeting all the candidates and listening to them in person. I have seen all of them except Kuchinich and Gravel at least once and many two or three times.  At the events for the "lower tier" I see many loyal caucus goers who are still undecided and taking another look before deciding on a first and/or second choice or whether to remain uncommitted (something you can do at the caucus).  

When people think we have too much influence, in a sense, that may be true, but I'm not sure there are many other places where the people can (as in it may be physically impossible in a large metro area) or would do what we do before going to caucus to screen the candidates on their positions.

Can you honestly say that you would take time out of your day over and over and over to wait, sometimes for hours, for candidates who are often very late and listen to what they have to say in person, not once, but several times?  

Would you be able to have them gather in groups small enough that you can ask them the tough questions and they don't have a way to not answer them? (or in not answering, you get an answer)

Would you stand face to face with them and ask those questions and confront them with their record or past positions on the same issue? and could you do that without the fear of being tased or drug out of the room by security?

Would you ignore the press and the pundits to support a person who you are told has no chance because you believe they are the most qualified to be President and you want to see them "get past Iowa" and have a chance to become the nominee?

And would you be willing to go out on a cold January night when you have many other obligations, vacation plans or school activities you "should" be doing to sit in a precinct for several hours, stand up in public so everyone knows who you are supporting and do your best to convince others they should change their minds and switch to your candidate?  

It's a big responsibility and we know that. It's time consuming, but the real caucus goers take the time and we take our responsibility to the rest of the country very seriously, as do the people of New Hampshire.  

Ask the candidates what we put them through and the lengths we go to do make up our minds about supporting them. I think it may surprise you.

Perhaps you should come to Iowa and join us.  Anyone is welcome to attend the events, ask the questions, engage in political discussions and try to convince the caucus goers to support a particular candidate.

Just don't call me and try to do it...I get 10-15 political calls a day at home, sometimes more, so like many others, I won't be answering the phone until January 4th.