This is just a hypothetical straw poll, driven mostly out of curiousity (and a debate with a coworker) for Edwards supporters.

Who is your second choice?

Please note that I am not calling for him to drop out, just curious who Edwards' supporters second choice is. Edwards was my second choice in 2004 even though I was a diehard Deaniac.

It's still a few weeks away, and a big win for either Clinton or Obama in South Carolina could disrupt the relative state of equilibrium and give one of them big momentum going into Super Tuesday. But assuming neither candidate picks up a lot of momentum from South Carolina, here are my predictions for Super Tuesday:

For months, I have been really torn between Edwards and Obama. I find Barack Obama fresh and inspiring, but I like Edwards' populist message and the fact that he talks about issues like poverty that often get swept under the radar. I wish Edwards had done better in Iowa, and that it was a genuine three-person race and being portrayed as such. But unfortunately, I don't see that happening at this point. He has a powerful message, but I am afraid that going forward, his message will receive little attention from the media, and discussions of his campaign will be limited to how he impacts the fight between Clinton and Obama. At some point, Edwards could become little more than an enabler for Clinton, and judging from his statements both about change in the abstract and about the other candidates, I would guess that that is not the role he wants to play.

Just in from CNN:

Democrats
Obama 7
Edwards 2
Richardson 1
Clinton 0

Republicans
McCain 4
Romney 2
Guiliani 1

Dixville Notch, for those of you who don't know, is a tiny town in Northern New Hampshire that votes and counts the votes at midnight. CNN said that it tends to be more representative of how the Republican primary will go than the Democratic primary. Still, 7-0 over Clinton looks pretty good for Obama.

There have been several blog posts like this one over the last couple days attacking NARAL for failing to stop the confirmation of Justices Roberts and Alito, resulting in the anti-choice majority that delivered yesterday’s heinous decision. I don’t necessarily agree with everything that has been said, but I do agree that donating to lobbying organizations like NARAL is no longer the right way to fight the anti-choice extremists. Like it or not, this anti-choice majority on the Court is not going away anytime soon, nor is it likely that we will ever have the 60 votes we need in the Senate to repeal the law. So federal lobbying is less important right now than what we can do on the election side, especially at the state level. Pro-choice activists need to stop focusing exclusively on the Court and on federal lobbying and start preparing for the worst by electing state legislators who will fight against bills like the one that almost passed in South Dakota last year and governors who will veto them.

Cross-posted at Purple State Pundit.

Below is a list of states that have not been prioritized by Democrats in the last two elections that I believe may be worth trying for this time around. These are not the traditional "purple states" like Ohio and Florida that we know are going to be targeted by both parties. These are states that lean Republican and have not been among Democrats' top targets in the last two presidential elections. But they are states that I think Democrats can at least make competitive in 2008, building on the gains we made in 2006 and taking advantage of the more even playing field than the one we faced in 2004. The states I have picked may be long shots, but even if we don't win them, if we can make the polls close enough, we can put Republicans on the defensive and force them to spend money in places they thought were safe.

So here's my first set of picks for new red-to-blue targets:

The Employee Free Choice Act just passed the House with 241-185, with 228 Democrats and 13 Republicans voting in favor. This is a great day for working Americans, who will gain the freedom to bargain collectively for better wages, benefits, and job security if this bill becomes law.

Cross-posted at my brand new blog, Purple State Pundit.

Like most politicos, I gripe from time to time about how unfair it is that people in New Hampshire and Iowa get so much attention from presidential candidates. I rail that those states are not particularly diverse, and I complain that they get to talk to candidates in fairly intimate settings such as town hall meetings for free while the rest of us have to pay hundreds of dollars for such a privilege. So initially, I was excited when I heard that California was considering moving its primaries up to February. After all, California is a much more diverse state than Iowa or New Hampshire, and it would give a lot more people a say in picking their party's presidential nominee. But I thought about it some more, and I realized that putting the California primary in February would do a disservice to the Democratic Party, and in some ways it wouldn't be so good for democracy either.

To Whom It May Concern:

I've posted a few diaries saying I was in favor of Obama, and I am still leaning in that direction. But after seeing some of the other candidates speak on Saturday, I realized it's going to be a tough choice, because we have a lot of great candidates.

I saw (and briefly met) Governor Richardson, and I was very impressed with him. In many ways, he has the best resume of all of the candidates, since he is a governor, with executive experience and that "Washington outsider" appeal, yet unlike most governors, he can't be criticized for lacking foreign policy experience. Having a proven record of getting things done both domestically and in foreign relations without a recent Congressional voting record to attack is a huge plus. I liked what he had to say, and I thought he was funny at times, like when he made a call for party unity and said that any of the Democrats running would be a big improvement in the White House - as his vice president! He's not as charismatic and engaging as Obama, and I don't know enough about where he stands on all the issues to fully evaluate him yet, but he definitely has potential.

Just a quick shout-out from the DNC Winter Meeting in Washington, DC. This morning I went to a labor breakfast with Howard Dean and most of the major labor leaders. Dean's speaking style was much calmer than when he was running for president, which is to be expected. I noticed that last year too, when I went to a DNC reception, and I was starting to think he's mellowed too much, until he said something along the lines of "the Republican arguments against raising the minimum wage are bullshit!" I felt better then.

A few weeks ago, I posted about why I saw Obama as the logical successor to Howard Dean in terms of appeal to grassroots/netroots activists. I did not understand why mydd and other bloggers were seeking a "progressive alternative" to Obama. Now I have a theory.

I am thrilled that Congress is finally taking up a minimum wage increase, and I recognize that a jump from $5.15 to $7.25 represents a larger increase than they usually do at one time (I think someone on the House floor said it was a 41% increase). But in looking at Habitat for Humanity's Fair Market Rent Affordability index, $7.25 seems woefully inadequate. At $7.25 an hour, workers in only 13 states who work 40 hours a week will be able to afford a one bedroom apartment, and that wage is too low to afford a two bedroom apartment in any state. That number will be even lower by the time the wage goes up to $7.25 in 2009, since market rents have risen 28% since 2000, compared to a 21% inflation rate and 15% rise in the incomes of the bottom 20% of Americans.

I recognize that even this increase will hit some small businesses hard, and it's impractical to double the minimum wage overnight. But if this is the only increase we are going to get for a while, shouldn't we push for something closer to an actual living wage?

Apparently Bush has given up on four of his appeals court nominees now that the Democrats are in control of the Senate.

I have to say, this is surprising. As much as I dislike Bush, one thing I will say about him is that for better or for worse (usually for worse) he fights for what he wants and manages to get his way even when it's an uphill battle. I guess he realizes he no longer has the political capital to strongarm Democrats into confirming his judges the way he did the last time the Democrats controlled the Senate.

This weekend, I will do what I once considered unthinkable: I will be moving to Virginia.

Moving from DC proper to the Virginia suburbs is hardly uncommon. But for a liberal, Northeastern Jewish Democrat who talks faster than most people can think, the idea of moving to a southern state was unimaginable. And unlike many DC transplants, I'm not moving there for lower taxes or job opportunities. I'm moving there, among other reasons, because I believe Virginia may be in the process of slowly transforming from a southern state to being part of the mid-Atlantic, and I want to be a part of that transformation.

I just got back from the Rayburn House building, where I attended a reception to celebrate the swearing in of Joe Sestak (PA07) and watch the election of the speaker and all of the other formalities. Most of the House proceedings today were formalities, but the circumstances made the procedural stuff exciting. I took part of the day off of work to go over to the Hill and watch the ceremonies because I wanted to be able to say I was there (well, in the same building, at least) when the first female speaker was elected and the first Democratic House we've had since I was old enough to understand what the House of Representatives was.

So, here are my impressions:

In 2004, Barack Obama was one of the original Dean Dozen, a group of progressive candidates supported by the group that was the off-shoot of Howard Dean's presidential campaign. Obama's opposition to the war made him popular with the netroots, helping him to defeat the Illinois Democratic Party's anointed candidate and a self-funding millionaire, both of whom began the campaign with far more money and name recognition.

Now, as Obama grows more and more popular with the mainstream press and is gaining steam for a presidential run, some liberal bloggers seem to be turning on him. MyDD's Jonathan Singer expressed his hope that a progressive candidate would emerge as an alternative to both Hilary Clinton and Obama.

Singer's comments came as a surprise to me. As a veteran of the Dean campaign, I have come to view Obama as the natural successor to Dean as the candidate who would appeal to progressive grassroots activists seeking an alternative to the presumed frontrunner.