It's Cattle Call time for the Democrats again. Round 'em up. Things have changed a bit since the last cattle call -- Dennis Kucinich announced his campaign, Bayh pulled the plug on his nascent bid, and word leaked of Edwards' potential run. Here's where things stand now.

1. Hillary Rodham Clinton -- Things will still have to change significantly before Clinton loses her pole position. For now, she's still got the money, the team, the name, and she holds the press attention. The good news for Clinton is that all of the media is fascinated with her. The bad news is that they are all obsessed with whether she can beat back Barack Obama. Still, Obama has his own questions to face before he moves into first.

2. Barack Obama -- The most fascinating thing about the Internet is how meta travels faster than the original story. Even as Obama's fawning media coverage only really begins to penetrate most of the non-politically obsessed universe, bloggers are already declaring the honeymoon over. The evidence? People are starting to hear that Obama used heavy drugs (Obama admits as much in his first book, so this has been public knowledge for a decade or so). Make no mistake -- if Bush could handle questions of his past drug use, Obama will be fine. The bigger questions for Obama will be simply whether questions of sufficient experience dog him and whether he can hold folks together -- as well as to what end Clinton will be able to end his campaign.

3. John Edwards -- Edwards is a smart man. He knows he will have to be bold to overcome both Clinton and Obama. He's leaked word that he'll announce his run for President from New Orleans -- a move that is nothing if not bold. Edwards emerges as the risky safe choice. He is risky in that he has demonstrated a willingness to take on poverty, embrace unions, speak highly of potential opponents (including popular ones like Obama), and announce his run from New Orleans. He is the safe choice because Dem primary voters know him. Left thinking Clinton cannot win and not sold on Obama, Edwards is a natural place for Dems to turn. Still, Edwards simply is nowhere near Clinton and Obama when it comes to piquing the interest of every reporter in Washington.

Contrary to the title of this article, the Democrats are not so much "rethinking" abortion, as deciding how much of an emphasis to place on it. They're still the party of abortion, but they'd like to be known as the party of "family planning".

The Democrats' public positioning on abortion has been evolving for many years beyond a pure rights-based philosophy to a more nuanced view that takes greater account of many Americans' deeply conflicted feelings while still solidly supporting the principle that women should have the choice of aborting a pregnancy. Bill Clinton won the White House in 1992 with promises he would seek to make abortion "safe, legal and rare."

The party has recently gone further. In the last election, Democrats embraced anti-abortion candidates, at least on the state and local level. Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa., an abortion opponent, was one of the Democrats' marquee candidates in 2006. And aggressive recruiting of anti-abortion candidates for rural conservative districts was a key component of party leaders' strategy to re take the House.

This is interesting because Roe v. Wade is hanging on by a thread. Specifically, Justice Stevens' thread, as he will be 88 years old in 2008. Unfortunately for NARAL, he can't live forever.

From this poll:

What is the top priority for Congress? Iraq 37%, Terrorism 15%.

Do the Democrats have a plan for Iraq? 57% NO

How about this poll?

While a bare majority of 51 percent called the Democrats' victory "a good thing," even more said they were concerned about some of the actions a Democratic Congress might take, including 78 percent who were somewhat or very concerned that it would seek too hasty a withdrawal of troops from Iraq.

The Democrats need to be careful about the lessons that they learn from the November elections. They're in a similar situation to a defensive coach who gets promoted to the top spot when the head coach gets fired in the middle of a losing season. They got the job because they were around. To keep the job they need to start winning some games.

When you spend a lot of time in the blogosphere it's easy to forget about the existence of that seemingly rare creature that inhabits the American electorate: the principled swing-voter. I'm not talking about independents, rather, members of either the Democratic or Republican party who, when compelled for whatever reason, cross the divide and vote for the other side. After enduring the moral shortcomings of Bill Clinton, many of these voters were drawn to George Bush and his promises to restore dignity and honor to the White House. Well, the same phenomenon seems to be happening this time around, only now it's some Republicans who are flocking towards Democratic candidates.

Disillusioned supporters of President George W Bush are defecting to Barack Obama, the Democratic senator for Illinois, the White House Candidate with the best chance of uniting a divided nation. Tom Bernstein went to Yale University with Bush and co-owned the Texas Rangers baseball team with him. In 2004 he donated the maximum $2,000 to the president's reelection campaign and gave another $50,000 to the Republican National Committee. This year he is switching his support to Obama. He is one of many former Bush admirers who find the Democrat newcomer appealing.

Who else is hitching up to this fledgling bandwagon? Well, two of the most prominent former GOP supporters are Matthew Dowd, Bush's chief campaign strategist in 2004, and Robert Kagan, founder of the neo-con Project for the New American Century. Then there's Navy reservist, John Martin,who has started the website, Republicans for Obama.

Still digesting everything that happened yesterday. Democrats had a good day, as I thought they would. Special congratulations are due to Rahm Emanuel, who did a fantastic job recruiting and funding candidates in many vulnerable (and some that I didn't think were vulnerable) Congressional races.

This election was very Clintonian (a compliment, by the way). The Democrats nationalized the election on Bush and the Iraq War. They kept the left wing of their party mainly out of sight towards the end of the race. They had all of their candidates who had been the most vocal in calling for higher taxes, investigations of the Bush Administration, and impeachment of the President publicly reassure voters that they didn't really mean that when they originally said it (see Rep. Charlie Rangel) and they had no intentions of following through if they did achieve Majority status. The Dems kept the Left in the wings, and highlighted the moderates and conservatives that they had running against Republicans in the South and the West. This is the way Bill Clinton won the presidency, and it worked again yesterday.

The Republicans have no one to blame but themselves.

In the aftermath of the Virginia Tech shootings, it looks like some good consensus decisions have been made about improving background checks. And by consensus I mean the improvements are made with the full approval of the NRA. Proving that not only can we apply some common sense to the problem, but also that gun owners are not one-issue extremists blind to public safety concerns.

UPI:

The National Rifle Association and Democratic legislators have agreed on a proposal to improve the U.S. system of background checks for gun purchases.

The proposal was inspired by the massacre at Virginia Tech, The Washington Post reported. The gunman, Cho Seung-hui, was able to purchase weapons and ammunition legally even though he had been ordered by a court to submit to a psychiatric examination because Virginia did not submit his name to a federal database.

The legislation would give states financial incentives to provide information to the federal National Instant Check System. There would also be penalties for failing to act.

In this case, the details of the deal are less significant than the fact that the NRA and Democratic party are getting together at all. I'm taking this as a sign that the gun control issue is actually being removed as an issue with which to hammer away at political opponents. That's a good thing.

Just an aside (about a silly thing, but I have to address it)... I was surprised by the anger and name calling in the comments on my Mark Warner post after I used the term "Democrat Party" instead of "Democratic Party."

I often interchange the term, not because of any right-wing conspiracy, but because that was how I was brought up. My family was made up of all Irish Catholic Democrats - my uncle even ran for office as a Democrat. They always called the party the Democrat Party as opposed to the Democratic Party - just the way they referred to themselves. I don't know how it is in other parts of the country, but in Rhode Island a ton of people I know use the terms Democrat Party and Democratic Party interchangeably. Perhaps if I were a professional politician it would be different. And as to the vulgar comments - I'm a registered Independent, not a Republican hack. Shame on you who make fun of a person's cultural speech idiosyncrasies. And to think you call yourselves "progressives"!

I was curious about the level of anger about this, so I Googled around a bit. Find out why it's so controversial after the jump...

After Ned Lamont won the Democratic nomination in Connecticut, you would have figured the Democratic Senators would have supported the choice of Connecticut voters. Instead, many of them have continued to support colleague Sen. Joe Lieberman.

Personally, I consider Lieberman the best choice for Connecticut, but I'm surprised the Democratic Party is not united in its support for the Democratic candidate. It is indicative of the many factions and divisions with their party. The far-left represent most of the leaders, like Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy, but maybe the rest of the Senate isn't quite so ready to abandon the moderates.

The Democrats have been in high spirits over their victories in the west, especially Jon Tester in Montana. But not so fast says Stuart Rothenberg at RCP:

Former President Bill Clinton carried four Mountain States -- Colorado, Montana, Nevada and New Mexico -- in his 1992 election victory over then-President George H.W. Bush, and he won three states four years later: Arizona, Nevada and New Mexico. It's true that in the two elections since Clinton, Democratic presidential candidates have carried only a single state, New Mexico (very narrowly, in 2000), but that's more a statement about the party and its nominees than about the region's inherent competitiveness.

New Mexico and Nevada definitely are competitive in presidential contests, but only Idaho, Utah and Wyoming are beyond the Democrats' reach in those elections.

Much of the hype about Democrats in the Mountain West stems from the party's victories in gubernatorial races. Democrats retained three governorships last year and added a new one (in Colorado). Democratic governors now sit in Montana, New Mexico, Colorado, Arizona and Wyoming -- five of the region's eight states.

But that's nothing new in the region. I went back to 1980 and found that Democrats won five of the past seven gubernatorial elections in Colorado and Wyoming (yes, that's right, Wyoming), four of the past seven in both New Mexico and Nevada and three of the past seven in Montana and Arizona.

I agree, Democrats have always been competitive within these states, but they are usually quite a bit to the right politically of the national democrats from the coasts. This explains why the Democrats don't do so well in the mountain states in the presidential elections. National Democrats such as Al Gore and John Kerry didn't play so well there.

This country needs more Democrats like Rep. Steny Hoyer who spoke to the Jerusalem Post on Thursday:

Iran with nuclear weapons is unacceptable, new House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer told The Jerusalem Post hours after entering the party leadership position.

...

Hoyer said the Democrats' position, like that of the Bush administration, was that preventing a nuclear-armed Iran had to be done through "discussions, negotiations, sanctions." Hoyer added that the US needed to work with the international community to block Teheran's nuclear ambitions.

At the same time, Hoyer said the use of force hadn't been taken off the table.

After my last call for a security Democrat, I'm glad for the country that we found one. While most Democrats, (Joe Biden) have appalling records on national security. Apparently there are still some who will not sacrifice the country for their own personal gain.

Democrats go slow on going slow, halt the halt, reverse the reverse, retreat from the retreat, the headlines write themselves!

Democratic leaders backed away from aggressive plans to limit President Bush's war authority, the latest sign of divisions within their ranks over how to proceed.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Monday he wanted to delay votes on a measure that would repeal the 2002 war authorization and narrow the mission in Iraq.

Senior Democrats who drafted the proposal, including Sens. Joseph Biden of Delaware and Carl Levin of Michigan, had sought swift action on it as early as this week, when the Senate takes up a measure to enact the recommendations of the bipartisan Sept. 11 commission.

As usual, the most aggressive partisan positions are originating in the House. And as usual the Senate, even with a Democratic majority, are stopping most of it.

This Howard Fineman article points out that soon Democrats are going to be forced to actually make significant decisions on the Iraq war, terrorism, and the funding thereof.

The Democrats, however, may be pressed into immediate action. Republican insiders think the Dems, once faced with funding votes, won't dare to vote "no," and that even the idea of attaching conditions to further spending could fail if conservative "Blue Dog" Democrats balk. They'll face particularly urgent calls if the president proposes a surge in the number of American troops in Iraq as part of the "Way Forward" plan. Announcing his presidential candidacy, former Sen. John Edwards-a reluctant war supporter turned foe-branded escalation a "huge mistake." Pelosi & Co. agree-and, soon, they can show just how much they are willing to risk to prove it.

Which leads into something I've been thinking about today. Where are the security Democrats? If I stipulate that Iraq is not part of the war on terror, and we leave, how then do we fight Osama, and pre-empt or prevent any further attacks?

Karl Rove becoming a private citizen will be too tempting a target for Congressional Democrats to pass up. They will continue to take every opportunity to publicly attack him, and will be constantly issuing subpoenas to Mr. Karl Rove as opposed to Karl Rove, presidential adviser. Their base will be constantly reminding them that it will be easier to get Karl Rove to appear before the Democrat show trials, since President Bush will no longer be able to order him not to. The Democrats won't be able to help themselves. And therein lies the problem.

The Democrats have been issuing a lot of subpoenas lately, and seem ready to go to court to force the Bush administration to comply. Having Rove before them under oath as a private citizen doesn't change anything, since he will still be able to claim that his discussions with the president and other administration officials falls under "Executive Privilege."

This will enrage the Democrats even further, and will probably force them, in a knee-jerk reaction, to go to the courts for a resolution. The Bush administration isn't afraid of that -- in fact, I think that a court battle is what they might be looking for.

Bamboozled by the changes happening in Iraq, Democrats, during their vacation, are reduced to proudly claiming credit for reforming the corrupt earmark process in Congress. In the fall of 2006, as Republicans attempted to institute their own set of earmark reforms prior to the elections, the Democrats blocked most of them. Now, Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) has managed to do a 180º on the earmark subject, now proudly stating Don't Get Rid of Earmarks in a New York Times Op-Ed. In it, he states that the Democrats pledged in 2006 to clean up the earmark process, and they have done so.

Not quite. Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio) reminds us that last fall it was Nancy Pelosi herself who promised that the Democrats would do everything in their power to reign in earmarks, and if it were up to her, she'd end them. At the very least, they'd be few and far between. Boehner admits that Republicans should have done more to reform earmarks while they were in power, but points out that some of the so-called "reforms" that Emanuel is so proud of has actually turned back some of the reforms that did get enacted by Republicans last year:

Already?

It was a solemn pledge, repeated by Democratic leaders and candidates over and over: If elected to the majority in Congress, Democrats would implement all of the recommendations of the bipartisan commission that examined the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

But with control of Congress now secured, Democratic leaders have decided for now against implementing the one measure that would affect them most directly: a wholesale reorganization of Congress to improve oversight and funding of the nation's intelligence agencies. Instead, Democratic leaders may create a panel to look at the issue and produce recommendations, according to congressional aides and lawmakers.

Of all the 9/11 recommendations, why did they renege on this one? Because legislators on the armed services committee and appropriations committee would lose power. In other words, these legislators empires come before security.