Washington - One after another, the Democratic Party's presidential hopefuls marched before a crowd of party officials and activists Friday and Saturday and promised to do everything they could to end the Iraq war.

There were differences over exactly what Congress should and could do to make that happen.

But the most popular single political message - both from the candidates and with the party rank-and-file - was a simple one: Bring the troops home.

"Those who voted for the war, those who voted to continue to support the war, those who voted to continue funding the war can surely vote to stop the war," said former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, one of four Democratic candidates to address the party's winter meeting Saturday. Six others spoke Friday. It was the first time those in the 2008 field all had appeared before the same audience.

With the Senate on the verge of debating a non-binding resolution against President's Bush's troop "surge," most of the party's presidential prospects made it clear they will push for more dramatic action than Congress is entertaining.

When Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York appeared Friday, she promised to end the war as president in 2009. She noted her support for capping troop levels. She acknowledged that "there are many people who wish we could do more," but she defended the non-binding resolution as a practical, achievable step against the president's policies.

But almost every other Democratic candidate who spoke argued for going beyond what Clinton has proposed and what Democratic leaders in Congress so far have endorsed.

peaking Saturday, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson implicitly rejected Clinton's argument when he said: "As someone who served in the Congress for 14 years, I know the power they hold, should they choose to wield it. The Congress passed a resolution authorizing war. They need to pass another one that overturns that authorization and brings our troops home by the end of this calendar year."

Vilsack came out for an immediate end to the war.

"It is time for us to clearly say the war must end and our troops must be brought home now," he said. "And let me say that I think Congress has a constitutional responsibility and a moral obligation to do it now: not a cap, an end. Not eventually, immediately."

Also speaking Saturday was Delaware Sen. Joe Biden, who has not endorsed an immediate pullout.

He said he was focused on blocking the plan to send more troops.

"Ladies and gentlemen, the president's surge is not a solution. It's a tragic mistake. And I will do everything in my power to stop it," he said.

Differing strategies

Appearing Friday, Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut dismissed the non-binding resolution as a "meaningless message" and said lawmakers should do more.

Former vice presidential nominee John Edwards said it was "a betrayal not to stop this president's plan to escalate the war when we have the responsibility, the power and the ability to stop it."

Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois called on every candidate to offer a plan to end the war. He has proposed withdrawing all troops by March 2008.

Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich told the audience Friday that Democrats should stop funding the war and "have an obligation to reclaim Congress' constitutional power to end the war."

Touting credentials

In the course of staking out their ground on Iraq, the candidates also touted their qualifications and electability to party members.

Vilsack took credit for turning Iowa from a Republican to a more Democratic state, and he pointed out the last two Democrats to win the presidency had been governors, not Washington insiders.

Richardson also touted his credentials as governor, plus his experience as energy secretary and U.N. ambassador under President Clinton.

Biden, chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, said: "America is looking for a leader with the breadth and depth of experience in world affairs, where they fully understand that President Bush is going to leave the next president with literally no margin for error."

Biden began his speech by addressing a recent gaffe in which he told the New York Observer that Obama was "the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean" to run for president.

Stepping to the podium Saturday, Biden smiled and said to the audience, "How was your week?"

Then he added more seriously, "I want to say that, I truly regret that the words I spoke offended people I admire very much. But I'm humbled that so many of these same people, as well as many of you in this room, judge them by my history and my heart. And for that, I'll be forever grateful to all of you."

Isupportthismessage.com

Much has been made recently of the clip of John Edwards brushing his hair to I feel pretty. The video was clearly an attempt to embarass the Senator but it could have exactly the opposite effect. While the only constitutional requirements for becoming president are being a natural born American and being over 35 years of age there are a long list of unofficial requirements solely based on looking at who have been our presidents since the start of our country. For example, all of our presidents have been white males and all but one, Kennedy, protestants. Most have been tall, wealthy and self made men. And, I would argue since the start of the television era, most have had good hair! The only exceptions were Lyndon Johnson and Ford, but they were not initially elected president.

So, if that holds true in the 2008 presidential race who will win? On the R side it rules out front runners Rudy and McCain and while Mitt has fantastic hair, his Mormonism would be another exception to the unofficial rules. In my mind that leaves Newt who is certainly going to enter the race and is polling third before even doing so. Ive met Newt several times and no matter what you may think about his policies, the man has a great head of hair.

On the D side, the frontrunners are Hillary, Barack, Edwards, and Ill throw Biden in there too. Biden drops completely off on the hair issue and out of the other three, Barack and Hillary have to overcome our history of electing white males. That leaves Edwards and his great hair as the Democratic nominee you heard it here first!! It may seem silly but it still comes down to who you want to see on TV every night or, of course, on IsupportThisMessage.com every day.

So the questions for you are: should race, religion, and sex be considered for running for president? Do looks matter? Are these superficial characteristics more important than policy? What if Im right and its Edwards v. Newt?

Have you supported a message today?

IsupportThisMessage.com

There were two interesting pieces in the Washington Post today on the immigration debate. The first was about how all the Republican frontrunners including John McCain were distancing themselves from the current negotiations McCain was the architect of last years attempt at a reform bill. The second was an editorial laying out the reasons why reform is needed now or we wont see it until 2009 at the earliest.

I think the Republican party needs to figure itself out in a hurry if they have any chance in 08 (and the best shot is probably McCain). It is tragic that McCain needs to stay quiet on immigration because obviously his pollsters are telling him the base is opposed to reform. Maybe because Bush wants reform legislation McCains people want him to distance himself from the president on the issue because of how his support on Iraq has hurt him. The bottom line is immigration reform is needed and future looking while closing the borders and deporting people is backwards, anti-competitive and slightly racist if we are to be honest. It is a losing issue for Republicans.

Americans want someone with a vision for the countrys future and a positive solution to the immgiration problem is part of that. But considering that three members of the Republican field do not believe in evolution maybe that is too much to ask.

IsupportThisMessage.com

Congressman Tancredo (R-CO) announced his presidential bid, April 03, 2007 based on one message anti-immigration. Despite the fact that he has very little campaign money and probably even less name recognition, he believes there are enough people in America who are opposed to a reasonable and rational immigration policy that is somewhere short of building a fence and deporting everyone who is out of visa status. He thinks all the anti-immigration people will come out of the woodwork, give him funds and vote for him.

Actually, he probably knows he cant win but his point is to push all the other candidates on their immigration policies most notably John McCain who co-signed the Senates immigration reform bill last year along with Ted Kennedy. The McCain-Kennedy bill was a smart bipartisan piece of legislation that called for both border security and a way for law abiding people to earn legal status in the U.S.

Whether Tancredo thinks he can win or turn other candidates into anti-immigration proponents, I think it is a sad message for a country made up of immigrants. The 2008 presidential election needs to be about America taking a long, hard look in the mirror and deciding what kind of country we want to be and how we want to redefine what America means. I thought America was the most open and free society in the world, where the toughest, hardiest, most hard working people came to create a better life for themselves and more importantly their children. According to Tancredo and his ilk, America is a country that fences itself in, suppresses civil rights in the name of finding illegals, fears people from other countries even if they share our ideals, and seeks to round people up and throw them out because of their visa status.

If we had that policy at the beginning of our history, we wouldnt be the country we are today. So Tancredos message is not one I can support and I hope it gains no traction whatsoever in this race.

Have you supported a message today?

IsupportThisMessage.com

First and foremost, IsupportThisMessage.com sends our sympathies to the families of the slain and wounded in the senseless tragedy at Virginia Tech yesterday. It is hard to comprehend how we can live in a world where it has never been easier to communicate and reach out to others and yet people still commit acts of violence like this. Why the killer couldnt find another means of expresssing whatever unimaginable feelings he had we all need ask ourselves as a society.

That being said, this horrible incident will undoubtably bring the issue of gun control to the forefront of the 2008 presidential race. Every candidate will now be asked: In the wake of the Virginia Tech tragedy, what is your position on gun control? On the right, candidates will still be forced to claim the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution grants an absolute right to purchase and possess fire arms, while the left will call for more controls on a broader reading of the Constituion that allows regulations on rights in the name of the greater societal good. (It really comes down to the Supreme Court Justices the next president will appoint by the way conservative judges will read the constitution literally while liberal judges more broadly).

What message do you support on gun control? Should it be much more difficult to purchase, possess and carry fire arms or does the 2nd Amendment grant absolute rights?

Have you supported a message today?

IsupportThisMessage.com

President Bushs approval rating is at about 30% and opposition to the war is at about 65% so how you ask could this work in favor of the Republican nominee in 2008? In a speech to the Cattlemans Beef Association today President Bush delivered a message that shows his White House, while beleagured, is still operating with a sharp edge politically so much so they may tee up the Republican nomiee for 2008. In discussing the Senates measure that just passed to defund the Iraq war after a set time Bush said, If Congress fails to pass a bill to fund our troops on the front lines, the American people will know who to hold responsible.

Eureka! The Democrats have just moved right into check mate! If Bushs Iraq policy is successful he and the Republicans can take credit and if it is not he can blame the Democrats!! He and the Republican nominee can especially blame the U.S. Senate where Democratic frontrunners Hillary and Barack now sit. I can see those ads running right now blaming Hillary, Barack, Joey B, and Chris D. for voting to lose the war! Rudy and Johnny Mac may be taking heat now for supporting the war but in November of 2008 they can say they didnt support losing it. Will you support that message?

Have you supported a message today?

IsupportThisMessage.com

Picture a country in your mind where scores of innocent civilians get blown up every day based on their religious affiliation, there is unreliable water and electricity supplies, and a crumbling infrastructure. This type of humantarian crisis would spur many in America and the West to take action to relieve the problem as occured in Bosnia. And, see current efforts to get us into the Sudan.

Now imagine this humanatarian crisis was partially caused by the U.S. and its allies even more of a reason to take action, right?

That is how we need to look at Iraq right now. It is a humanatarian crisis that we have an obligation to improve and obviously leaving is not the way to do that. If we stop looking at why we went in and blaming people thats good for politics but means nothing to the people of Iraq and stop talking about winning or losing the war, we can arrive at a strategy, define success and achieve results.

Lets change the terms of the debate away from fighting and winning the war on terror in Iraq to stabalizing and improving the lives of Iraqis. As I recall, that was one of the reasons given for going in. Then we can set some deliverables about ethnic violence, the economy, water and electricity supplies, medical care, infant mortality, education, and infrastructure development, and leave when these items have been sufficiently addressed. This provides an exit strategy for us that involves success improving the lives of Iraqis so we can be winners! We are kidding ourselves if we think the battle against Islamic fundamentalism will be won or lost on the streets of Baghdad, or that Al Qaeda wont strike us because were in Iraq or will if we leave.

If we leave prior to that on some artificial timeline we will be no better protected against terrorism, and the people of Iraq the ones we liberated from Saddam Hussein will be shackled by fear, violence, and poverty. That is not a message I can support.

Have you supported a message today?

IsupportThisMessage.com

First of all, as a supporter of immigration reform I commend President Bush for working with the Senate on this bill despite the fact he may have just aliented the 28 percent of the population who still think he is doing a good job. I still cant understand how a country of immigrants can be so anti-immigrant but at least the Republicans know who their base is, right?

Once again, there are major provisions on border security to try and placate this base although for me that is both silly and anti-American. Were a country that tears down walls not builds them not to mention walls in cities havent done their job so why do we think a fence along thousands of miles of desert will work? Like I said, silly.

The legalization provision for the 12 million undocumented workers is a very positive and necessary step. I dont understand why after paying a fine and meeting a serious of requirements the bill calls for the head of the household to go back to their country of origin to apply for the green card. Again, why? Is that some kind of punishment by bureaucracy?

The new temporary worker provision, which grants 3 consecutive periods of work is also the right move except it offers no path to citizenship at the end. You would think that someone who has worked, paid taxes, and lived lawfully in the U.S. for 6 years would have earned at least the possibility of citizenship. This is just another political move that makes no sense and will only cause more illegal immigration in the future.

Finally, the bill moves the immigration system away from the family based system to a work based system. That is fine as long as it doesnt separte nuclear families, especially since most people who oppose immigration are also family values voters.

This bill is a good first step to much needed legislation but I certainly hope lawmakers stick to common sense and stop the political provisions aimed at making the anti-immigrant voters feel somehow better about themselves.

Have you supported a message today?

IsupportThisMessage.com

I was struck by the front page of the New York Times today. The picture of the Virginia Tech killer, Cho Seung-Hui, with two guns is above the headlines: Officials Knew Troubled State of Killer in 05, and Laws Limit Colleges Options When a Student is Mentially Ill. Next to that is the headline: In Reversal of Course, Justices, 5-4, Back Ban on Abortion Method. Below the fold we have Bombs Rip Through Baghdad in Wave of Attacks, Killing 171, and Iran Exonerates Six Who Killed in Islams Name.

  To me this stories were filled with conflicting and mixed messages. Here are just a few:

1. The government can and should regulate abortion but not guns;

2. The mental health of a suicidal and homicidal killer receives more protection than the physical health of a pregnant woman there is no expection in the Supreme Courts decision for the health of the mother;

3. The Iranian Supreme Court exonerated soldiers for killing in the name of Islam the U.S. Supreme Court would imprison doctors for up to two years for a medical procedure;

4. More troops havent stopped mass killings in Baghdad but will less troops protect the people of Iraq?

Maybe the presidential candidates need to take the debate to the 30,000 foot level and start defining their vision for Americas future on how we should define ourselves as a country. I argue that 9-11, the defining event of the 21st Century (so far) put us back on our heels and has made us lose our moral compass. That day and events since have made Americans and the world question what America stands for.

Are we the defenders of freedom any more and what does freedom mean?

Are we the land of opportunity but for whom? All?

What privacy rights should the individual have in the information age?

When is it ok to kill?

We all need to debate these issues and vigorously defend the positions and messages we believe. The 2008 election should be about the big picture in America and the candidate with the brightest vision, hopefully, will prevail.

IsupportThisMessage.com