Vox Populi recently wrote a diary entitled, An Inability to Discuss. In his diary he writes,

I've noticed when I make a post with an Obama critique his groupies here immediately attack the poster (me) without addressing the issues.

Well that doesn't seem very fair of us "Obama groupies" now does it.  So in response I will respond to Vox's "critiques" of Obama and give them as much discussion as they warrant (hint: it's not much).

I'd like to start with one of my personal favorite diaries by Vox, Obama Introduces Legislation to Withdraw Troops from Iraq
This diary was written on January 2nd and when you clicked on it to read the body of the diary it reads,

Oh wait, no he didn't.  He just rhetorically opposes it.  Way to go, Senator O!

No that's not an excerpt of the diary; that's the entire thing.  Now even if we completely overlook the fact that this diary was written before Congress came into session and that Obama actually did introduce legislation to withdraw troops from Iraq, it's still hard to deny that this diary isn't exactly inviting thoughtful discussion.  If you really wanted to stimulate a discussion on Obama's Iraq War views/policy perhaps you could have gone about doing so a little more effectively?

Vox's next piece on Obama was entitled, Obama Skips out on Union "Forum", Democratic Voters

Well actually it was entitled Obama Snubs Union, Democratic Voters, but he eventually changed it.  Perhaps he realized the title was again not exactly inviting discussion?  The topic of this diary in and of it's self is certainly worthy of discussion.  Should Obama be skipping the forum?  Is it politically a good idea?  I can think of many ways this topic could be presented as a good discussion.  Instead, Vox just makes fun of Obama for claiming being a Senator makes it difficult to do everything he wants to do.  Certainly questioning whether or not being a Senator actually does make his campaign schedule harder to adjust is a fair topic, but when you present it in a mocking fashion with the title of the diary being Obama Snubs Union, Democratic Voters, you're again not exactly inviting an intellectual conversation.

Vox's next diary is entitled, Does Obama's Cocaine Problem Make Him Damaged Goods?

In it he writes,
We already know Barack Obama is a smoker, which certainly doesn't give him credibility when it comes to fighting the tobacco companies as any Democratic nominee should do.  But what we may or may NOT know is that he becomes the first candidate to admit to using cocaine.

Okay he quit smoking and I don't really care that he tried cocaine, you probably do(although I have a sneaking suspicion you wouldn't if this were Edwards we were talking about).  Okay end of discussion, lets move on.

Vox's next diary is Obama Supports Bombing Iran AND Pakistan

Okay i'm sorry, but why hasn't Fox News hired you yet?  This would make Karl Rove proud.... (I just gave this diary MORE discussion than it ever deserved)

Next is Tom Daschle Announces He's Running for Vice President

Well apparently the only reason anyone would ever endorse Obama is because they're running for vice president.  Hmmm a lot of people are running for vice president this year.
I don't know what the purpose of this diary was, but I can't for the life of me conclude that it was to initiate a discussion on Dashle's endorsement of Obama.

Okay well I could continue, but it's getting late and I think we get the point.  Vox, if you want Obama supporters to address the issues instead of the poster i'm afraid you're going to have to start posting diaries that warrant discussion.  Until then I'm afraid we'll be stuck in an endless loop of being smartasses.

One can learn a lot about Senator Obama from reading MyDD diaries from people like Vox Populi and TarHeel.  For instance, I now know that the freshman senator from Illinois is a war monger, liberal hater, and has absoluetely no real principles to speak of.

These endless hit piece diaries would almost be funny if they weren't meant to be serious.  One of my personal favorites was the one attacking Obama for not proposing a plan to get out of Iraq.  "Wait a minute" you may say "Obama did propose a resolution that would do exactly that".  Well yes he did but this diary was actually written before the Senate was even in session.

Or how about the diary attacking Obama for talking like Lieberman.  To think Obama actually has the audacity to use the phrase "a new kind of politics".  Doesn't he know anyone that uses that phrase is a Lieberman clone and a closet Republican?

Then there's the diary entitled:
"Obama Supports Bombing Iran AND Pakistan"  HOLY SHIT!  Obama not only wants war with Iran, but he's going after Pakistan too.  This guy's worse then Bush!  To think I thought he was the most credible anti-war candidate competing for the Presidency, silly me.  Why stop with inflamatory titles like this one?  Why not just make diaries entitled "Obama supports child rapists" or "Obama = Osama"

Of course we can't leave out all the diaries attacking Obama for having no principles.  All this guy does is talk about "Hope" and has no idea what he actually wants to do right?  I find this line of attack to be particularly puzzling since Obama has laid out his principles and proposals more than any other Presidential Contender i've ever seen in the two books he has written.  Why can't he do this in a 30 second soundbite?  Well for starters because it takes longer than 30 seconds to actually explain anything with substance.  What about his stump speechs, how come they don't have enough specifics?  Maybe because that's not the point of a stump speech.  The purpose is to attract people and energize them and he does that better than anyone else.  If you want to know more about his specific ideas and views than read his books or at least do a little more research than looking at an interview.

The one striking aspect of all the MyDD hit pieces on Obama is they seem to come universally from Edwards supporters.  So what is it that they have against Obama.  Is it that he delivers his message better than Edwards?  Is it that their guy was suposed to be the "anti-Hillary"?  Is it that he's more exciting?  Is it that he gets more press coverage?  I don't know, but what I do know is that these diaries are meaningless.  You're not hurting Obama by writing them and you're certainly not helping Edwards.  After reading your diaries I have an image in my head of all Edwards supporters foaming at the mouth every time they see or hear Obama.  You don't have to get on the Obama train, but do you  really think you're going to derail it by putting pennies on the track?

Tom Harkin is supposedly the only Senate Democrat that hasn't committed to running for re-election in 2008 yet.  However, as of lately he's acting like he running.  

I am still receiving mail from his PAC asking for donations which in and of its self tells me he's looking at running.  Of particular note though is his last letter.  In his latest letter he writes,

"And with your help, I'll lay the ground work for my 2008 re-election campaign and be able to withstand the Republican attacks I'm sure to face because I've been so outspoken in taking on the President and fighting to bring progressive change to America."

he also writes,

"...I need to start building my campaign war chest long in advance of the election."

These don't sound like the words of someone who wants to retire.  If he does run that will be great news not only because we won't have a single retiring Senate Dem, but also because Senator Harkin is one of the best progressive Senators we have.

I'm also going to be very interested to see if he'll endorse a Presidential Candidate.  Harkin hasn't been shy in the past of making endorsements during the primaries and his popularity with the base and grassroots in Iowa is certainly beneficial to whoever he gets behind.  His endorsement for Dean in 04 helped to bring a lot of the excitement around Dean's campaign in Iowa.  If he does make an endorsement i'm almost certain it will be for Obama.  He has already expressed such admiration for Obama it's hard to imagine him not.  The only thing I could see preventing this is him not wanting to offend Governor Vilsack.

Living in Iowa it was no surprise to see Vilsack run for President.  He's had his eye on this job for a long time.  It's probably the reason he declined to run for DNC Chair when he was asked to run by the insiders as an alternative to Dean.  From my knowledge of him here's my perspective

Pros:
He's a good fundraiser.  He definitly has the capability to raise money and compete for the nomination, although he'll never have Hillary money (but then again who will).

He's from Iowa!  This obviously doesn't hurt considering this is where it all begins.  Winning in Iowa sets up momentum for the rest of the states.  Although voters of the other 49 states will realize Vilsack has the upper hand if he wins Iowa and it won't give him the same momentum it did to say Kerry in 04.  When Harkin ran for President he won Iowa, but ultimately lost the nomination to Bill.  None the less, it's a good state to be from.

He helped deliver huge gains in 06.  The Democrats won big on the state level and won the trifecta (state house, senate, and governorship).  Not to mention Iowa delivered 2 net gains for the House of Representatives by taking Rep. Nussle's old seat (who ran for governor and lost big) and scoring one of the biggest upsets in the country by defeating popular Rep. Leach.

He is seen as a moderate and could have appeal to midwestern states like Iowa (obviously), Missouri, and Arkansas which may be essential to winning.

Alternative Energy.  If gas prices rise to high enough levels this can be a big issue for Vilsack.  Iowa is the leader in Ethanol production and we currently have 10% of it in our gasoline.  If he makes this a big domestic issue to run on he will be seen as having a lot of credibility.

He opposes the Iraq War.  This makes him much more favorable than Hillary in my opinion.  I can compromise on some issues, but I think the Democratic nominee has got to be someone that stands up against this war.  

Cons:

He's the chair of the DLC.  A lot of the Democratic base, especially the netroots, are less than thrilled with this organization.  Although I have to say I have heard him speak many times and I have never heard him attack any Democrats for being too left like some in the DLC have.  If we were going to pick a moderate in 08 he would actually be one of the better choices.  In fact, he's progressive on every social issue I can think of.

His public speaking is less than inspiring.  He's not bad, but he just doesn't have the charismatic touch that I would like to see from the Democratic nominee.  I know a lot of people may say they don't care about charisma, but it matters when it comes to running for U.S. President.  Not only because it is essential on the campaign trail, but because the President is the face of the nation.  Anyway i've seen him share a stage with Clinton and Obama and lets just say he's not the one you go home remembering.

He has no foreign policy experience.  Of course no governor really does...

He has no real national standing.  Nobody really knows who the guy is.  Of course, this again usually comes with the turf when a governor runs for president.  Who know who Clinton was before he ran?

Overall:
I think we can do better.  I don't think he will win honestly, he's just doesn't have much that sets him apart from the crowd.    I won't work for him in the primaries, but he if wins i'll be happy to support him.  If it came down to him and Hillary being the front runners (which I don't think it will) I would support him.  He's much less polarizing than Hillary and his foreign policy would not be nearly as hawkish.  He's also far more progressive than the other moderates that are likely to run like Bayh.

With the recent shift in the generic polls towards the Republicans and the slight boost in Bush's approval ratings, we're starting to see a lot of worrying.  Of course the Dems are still up in the generic and Bush's approval ratings still suck.  This isn't to mention the fact that nobody is going to be voting for a generic candidate on tuesday.  Sure I like having a big generic lead, but it means far less to me than individual polls.

On the individual level the House looks damn good for the Democrats.  Over at CQPolitics the projection is D-212 R-199 and 24-No Clear Favorite.  Now we don't need a 20 point generic lead to get to 218 with these numbers.  Cook has 6 Republican seats likely to fall and 34 Republican toss ups and 15 lean republicans.  Again i'd be content with taking half of the toss ups and 1 or 2 of the leans.  Aside from the Bush administration and the Republican leadership, nobody is seriously projecting the Republicans to maintain their majority.  Now this isn't to say we'll definitly win the House, A LOT of races are toss ups and will be won by a slim majority, but with hard work we'll come through on election day.  We've been hearing a lot about Republican GOTV putting them over the edge, but so many of these races dont have the Republican GOTV set up they would like.  Many of these races are seats they weren't expecting a big fight in and failed to set up a massive GOTV operation in.  They're still dumping money into GOTV in all these races, but they need time and money and lack the first.

For the Senate taking a majority looks better to me now than it did ever really.  None of us liked the numbers in RI and MT in the recent Mason-Dixon, but RI was an outlier and we'll still win there and i'm confident MT will be Democratic at the end of the night as well.  Likewise i'm not worried about losing Maryland, despite Steele's impressive campaign.  Steele will take some of the black vote from Cardin, but he'll lose.  If it wasn't 2006 maybe he would have won, but not this year.  

TN is probably gone, which is unfortunate but we don't need it to take the Senate.  Without TN we truly have to run the gauntlet now, but we look better now in VA and MO than we ever have.

Where control really matters is in MO and VA and i've really been encouraged by the numbers in these two states.  With McCaskill and Webb both holding statistically insignificant leads in both states I like our chances.  While their leads are usually 1-2 points, we haven't seen a public poll with either McCaskill or Webb behind in awhile and that's encouraging.  Webb has the superior ground game in VA and will end up winning.  The election will fall on McCaskill in MO, which really means nothing has changed.  Talent has run  good campaign and has a good GOTV opperation, but the same can be said for McCaskill.  I pray the Stem Cell issue puts her over the top, but i'd give her right around a 50% of winning with the slightest of edges.

Taking both Houses would be amazing for us and it's most definitly within our reach.  Showing pessimism a day before the election isn't going to get us anywhere we want to be.  We need to remain positive and motivated now more than ever.  No matter what, this election will be a victory for us, but it's our job now to make that victory as big as possible.

After Bowers began his "Use It or Lose It" campaign I began to think about how much money was out there that could really be making a huge difference in the next few weeks.  That's why I was so upset when I learned that Senator Clinton dumped $10.1 million into her own Senate campaign in the last quarter!  That is the most money any Senator has spent on their campaign during this cycle.

Considering Clinton could have sailed to victory on November 7th without spending a dime, i'd say calling this $10.1 million a waste of money is more than fair.  The truth is Clinton is pouring money into this campaign so she can blow out her opponent as badly as possible to look good in preparation of 2008.  This is seriously  ridiculous.  Like anyone really cares if Hillary wins her seat by 10% or 20.

Imagine how far $10.1 million could go in Missouri or Tennessee.  The money Hillary decided to waste to inflate her own ego could very well have been used to capture a Democratic Senate.  Hillary's meaningless spending and hoarding of her enormous war chest is truly an outrage to the Democratic Party.  I hope we don't forget this when she runs for President.