Just yesterday House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer was telling us that he’d basically lost control over House Democrats and that they were the ones forcing his hand in this ridiculous compromise over FISA that would grant big telecommunication companies immunity over their warrantless wiretapping and other exercises.  At about 11:30 this morning I get an email from the office of the majority leader telling me that between the House and Senate majority and minority leaders of their respective intelligence committees that a compromise has been reached–and according to the Wall Street Journal, that compromise essentially include immunity.

As David Kurtz points out at TPM, it is a ridiculous compromise that creates such a weak standard for “conditional immunity” that just about any telecom company could meet.

If Hoyer thinks he’s lot control now (but then regained it to tout this compromise) let’s show him what a lack of control looks like when the blogosphere puts the pressure on his office and Congressional Democrats across the country not to vote for this POS compromise.

CALL NOW!

Here’s the switchboard number for the Majority Leader’s Office: 202-225-3130

You can reach Iowa’s congressmen at these numbers:

• IA-01, Bruce Braley (D): (202) 225-2911
• IA-02, Dave Loebsack (D): (202) 225-6576
• IA-03, Leonard Boswell (D): (202) 225-3806
• IA-04, Tom Latham (R): (202) 225-5476
• IA-05, Steve King (R): (202) 225-4426

Remember to be polite and concise, expressing your opposition to the FISA Amendments Act (H.R. 6304) and asking for your representative to oppose it as well.

If you get a response one way or the other on how they’d vote, leave a note in the comments.

This morning, Barack Obama sent this video an email to supporters explaining his decision to opt out of the public financing system for presidential elections.

Last fall, Obama told Common Cause that he would participate in the system by aggressively pursuing a so-called “fundraising truce” with the Republican nominee.  But as Ambinder noted in his background statements, McCain and his campaign didn’t seem to want to participate.

My thoughts?  I think this is a good decision, especially after witnessing what happened in 2004 by the Republican special interests and 527s.  The problem itself isn’t money in politics but big money in politics…and the fact that there is a lack of regulation in certain arenas and too much regulation in others.  Obama has raised millions of dollars from millions of small-dollar donors.  And he’s publicly asked and demanded that 527s not support him but instead asked for those individuals to directly support his campaign or the Democratic National Committee.  McCain is doing nothing to keep lobbyists and big money from trying to influence the system even though he says he’s committed to a system of reform and clean elections.  McCain says one thing and does another (tacitly, at least, because he allows it to happen).

You can find the full text of Obama’s remarks below the fold.

It is probably still an inconvenient or touchy time to be talking about this with all of the truly disastrous flooding coming to an end in Iowa and the cleanup just beginning.  But it has to be said: we weren’t truly prepared for this kind of disaster and we have to take steps to prevent it from happening in the future.

Brad Johnson, a research associate at the Center for American Progress and a blogger at their Wonk Room policy blog, brought my attention to a couple of his posts on the terrible flooding and storms in the Midwest this summer, particularly in Iowa.  And in those posts he makes a couple of fascinating points.

First, he notes Sen. Chuck Grassley’s hypocrisy in calling attention to the complacency over severe weather (speaking on the Senate floor about the deadly Parkersburg tornado) yet voted to filibuster the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act.

Second, he notes an unfortunate quote from Gov. Chet Culver about our inability to “anticipate or prepare for” these types of events.  The facts are that reports since at least 2000 have been forecasting the types of weather patterns Iowa has been experiencing over the last couple of years.  See the link above for more information at Johnson’s post.

It seems clear that leadership on both sides of the political spectrum in Iowa have failed us.  They are not considering the big picture when it comes to environmental concerns in the state of Iowa.  And statewide environmental groups aren’t putting the pressure on local and state officials to keep them accountable either.

We need better and bolder leadership on the broad issues of global climate change and environmental issues in Iowa.  Whether or not you want to attribute the cause of these terrible weather patterns to global climate change, call them a natural aberration, or simply just call them normal, our leaders should be considering some important things when moving forward with reconstruction.  Bill Becker at Climate Progress offers more details, but here is his list which he deems lessons from an angry planet:

1. We need to put unprecedented pressure on our national leaders to get serious about mitigation and adaptation.
2. It’s past time to rethink national flood control and water management strategy.
3. When we repair and rebuild disaster-damaged buildings and infrastructure, we should do so with cutting-edge mitigation and adaptation in mind.

Groups like the Iowa Global Warming Campaign, the Iowa Chapter of the Sierra Club, the Iowa Environmental Council, and any other group committed to protecting and defending Iowa’s environment should be tackling issues like this.  Granted, there are concerns about hog lots, Iowa’s waterways, and coal power plants to be concerned about as well.  Heck, even 1000 Friends of Iowa should be concerned about future development that not only is environmentally-friendly but that protects families and businesses on or near flood plains.

The state needs leadership on these pressing issues.  We call events like these “100 year floods” and “500 year floods” for a reason.  The frequency with which they occur is not what is implied, but the the likelihood that they will.  In just a 15 year period of time, we’ve experienced drastic periods of extreme drought and extreme precipitation.  You can even go back to periods in the 1980s (particularly around 1984) and see the same type of patterns, but with less severity.  We are certainly experiencing more severity with more frequency.  This is a result of global climate change.  We aren’t taking the threats seriously and we aren’t preparing ourselves for the future–either by accommodating the tragic effects that are likely or by acting to stop these events from happening in the first place.

The big debate in Iowa that is now emerging as the flood waters head downstream and leave the state is how to pay for all of the destruction and prepare for the reconstruction.  Some want to use the state’s rainy-day fund and others are looking at incurring state debt as an option.  In the end, the debate will be politically charged about fiscal issues and not the bigger picture.  Democrats and Progressives in Iowa have to think big picture or our meager political gains (and the state itself) will be washed away, no pun intended.

There seem to be two distinct ideas emerging for financing the massive reconstruction project Iowa will have to enact to deal with the tragic and disastrous floods we’ve experienced this spring (on a quick side note, I sure hope that summer fares us better).  The first is to tap into the state’s so-called “rainy day” fund (no pun was intended, I’m sure) and the other is to borrow money and essentially create debt.  Both are the logical responses to a natural disaster of this magnitude.  I think it was a Johnson County emergency management official who said this was “our own Katrina.”  Whether he meant that in terms of sheer destruction or bad planning or reactions to the event, I’m not sure.  But the statement still leaves an impact.

Once we get beyond the human and emotional costs of the flooding, we will ultimately have to deal with the political ramifications of financing the reconstruction.  Governor Culver seems to prefer using the state’s rainy day fund.  Senate Majority Leader Gronstal says he’s open to incurring debt.  So what are we to do?

At first glance, Gov. Culver’s idea would seem to the most politically feasible and publicly attractive option on the table.  The state and taxpayers won’t have to incur debt or use their taxes to pay off the bills because they’ll just use the extra money they have right now to reconstruct Iowa.  But I think there should be serious consideration of incurring debt to finance the reconstruction.

To me, the root of the problem is whether we want to rebuild or reconstruct what has been destroyed.  Those mean different things.  Rebuilding implies we’ll bring things back to the status quo, maybe with some minor improvements.  Reconstruction implies a step forward and desire to plan and implement improvements and to change the way we do things.  Iowa needs the investment in the future and needs to show that the state has the ability and capability to plan effectively, plan efficiently, and act with speed to solve problems and fix what has broken.

Incurring debt isn’t such a bad thing, as David Yepsen told us yesterday.  There are reasons to consider it.  Tapping into the rainy day fund isn’t a bad idea either.  But will either one be enough?

The special legislative session to deal with this issue is going to happen; it has to.  But the debate will be a lengthy one.  And it will result in tough decisions.  Contrary to what others argue, waiting to see what the federal government will pay for is not an option.  If this truly is “our Katrina” then we all know that federal disaster response is horrid.  The state must act soon.

Well, the results coming in have been surprising so far, at least on the Democratic side of things.  Clinton up with a quarter of the vote in.  Was there anyone predicting that?

You can track live results here from CNN.com.  Jerome Armstrong’s got an interesting discussion going here saying that with Clinton making the contest this close in NH that we’ve still got a tough race going on to February 5th…and even beyond.

So, what’re your thoughts?  How fluid are things?  What’s next?

There has been a flurry of blog posts and news stories talking about the entrance polling and the results of the caucuses.  The basics we know include things like record turnout and a surge in the number of youth showing up to the Democratic caucuses, as well as ‘no party’ folks changing their registration to Democrat.

I don’t have the capacity nor the will power to significantly examine all of the results county by county, candidate by candidate.  But I can direct you towards some very interesting information.

First of all, if you’d like some detailed results and would like to see some maps, feel free to check out CaucusResults.com which has the detailed information about the results courtesy of the Iowa Democratic Party.  If you provided some information to the party prior to caucus night by visiting IowaCaucusResults.com then you should’ve received an email notification with a password so you could log in.  If you didn’t and would like to be able to see the information, feel free to email me and I can get you logged in.

Secondly, one of the big things that we’ve seen talked about is the amount of youth turnout for the caucuses.  Whether you call youth 17-24 year olds or 17-29 year olds it seems pretty clear that folks my age showed up and participated.  Iowa Student Public Interest Research Group (PIRG) put out a release talking about the numbers (which can be found here) and it clearly shows how the youth support was another cushion of support for Barack Obama.  The Register examined the same thing here, while also noting the evangelical Christian support that helped Huckabee.  The Register also provides a county map that shows which candidate won which county, including counties that are “ties” (at least according to percentage totals).  The breakdown follows like this:

• Barack Obama: 41 counties
• John Edwards: 29 counties
• Hillary Clinton: 25 counties
• Ties: 4 counties

Looking specifically at the four counties where there were ties, they were ties because the number of delegates for first place were evenly divided.  Three were tied for Clinton and Edwards; one was split for Clinton and Obama.

Finally, and I think this is one of most fascinating posts and discussion about the caucus results, go over to the Daily Yonder and read their post about how Democratic and Republican candidates did in rural Iowa.  Edwards’ strategy focused heavily on rural Iowa, and while it paid off for him a bit, it wasn’t the deciding fact simply because of the turnout Barack Obama was able to bring about in both urban and rural Iowa.  Fascinating piece of information alert:

“Both Edwards and Clinton won more votes in rural Iowa than in urban Iowa.”

I’ll leave that little bit of information to you guys to figure out what it means in the grand scheme of things in this presidential race.  Any other interesting demographics or information you think we should talk about?

Winners

• John Edwards: Stayed strong and on message.  Sided with Obama as a candidate for change, and put Clinton on the spot as the status quo candidate.  He came off as articulate, clear, and as the viable alternative to a non-confrontational unity politician like Barack Obama.
• Bill Richardson: Didn’t do anything good, didn’t do anything bad.  His one big flop was calling Russia the Soviet Union.  But he’s tired, just like the rest of the candidates.  He’s not going to be the nominee, but he isn’t going to be left out of the race.  He’s clearly making the case as an experienced vice presidential candidate.
• The people of New Hampshire: Compared to the Republican debate, the second half of the Democratic debate was quite engaging on the issues, on the race, and on substance.  Clearly, there is a push for new policies and ideas in the Democratic party.  We want real leaders who will talk clearly and our Democratic candidates are willing to do that.  While looking exhausted when not answering, they were engaged when the camera was on them.  New Hampshire has a tough choice ahead of them.
• Barack Obama: He didn’t shine like he could’ve as the front-runner, but Gibson made sure he got the first and last word.  He seemed more tired and lackluster than he is on the stump, but that seems to have been the case for most of the debates he has been in.

Losers

• Hillary Clinton: Her angry moment sure didn’t help her (though it is quite clear she has the energy and is quite committed to the race) and Edwards’ double-team with Obama against definitely portrayed her as the third wheel of a two-person race.  She’s falling fast in New Hampshire and needs to dump Mark Penn.
• The Republicans: After watching most of their debate, I can’t see how American or folks in New Hampshire would want their old grumpy grandpa or their sleazy corporate boss as president.  Huckabee’s the only one who looked presidential but his policy offerings have largely been substance-less.  Bill Clinton had the advantage of being an intellectual and Rhodes Scholar to overcome the fact that he was really only the governor of Arkansas.  Huckabee doesn’t have that advantage.
• Charlie Gibson (And his NH counterpart): Maybe it was just me, but his cynicism towards the Democrats in general seemed to make him look just as grumpy and frumpy as most of the Republicans in the hour and a half before the Democrats.  I’m glad they challenged the Democrats but it seemed a bit harsh and a bit more than needed.

Feel free to call me out on these and offer your own thoughts and reactions.  We all know I can be wrong from time to time.  And if you’re curious, Time’s Mark Halperin offers his grades of the candidates here.

Update: The liveblog and commentary is in the comments section.  Go there, participate.

I’ll be offering some of my commentary on tonight’s debate here at BH either here on the front-page or in the comments.  Feel free to drop in comments whenever  you please and share your thoughts.

Right now the Democrats and Republicans are on stage for a huge photo op.  Interesting image…

Cross-posted at Political Forecast.

Maybe I’ve missed something in my absences from blogging over the past few months, but has the Register ever really done a serious news or feature piece on Iowa’s bloggers and citizen journalists?  I mean, I know we threaten their credibility and their readership by getting scoops, insight, and news out faster sometimes–not to mention that our commentary is sometimes more consistent and better written than their columnists’–but it almost seems like there is an intent to ignore the contributions that bloggers in Iowa have had both before the caucuses and in previous elections or issues.  Today, in their features section, they profile one citizen journalist who has been vlogging for PurpleStates.tv (she had to audition to get the gig) and one guy who has been doing it for MTV.  Don’t get me wrong, their efforts are valuable…but what about the folks who do this on their own time and don’t necessarily live off of it?

The folks at Iowa Independent have been doing regular news and political reporting since May, and other bloggers on both sides of the aisle have been part of the debate and policy discussion in Iowa politics for a few years now.  Other papers across the state, as well as national papers and news magazines, have highlighted our growth and commented on our contributions.

Simply put, why can’t Iowa’s paper of record recognize or examine the Iowa online community for what it is and report back to the people of Iowa on it?  I don’t want the media attention, the scrutiny, the interviews, the publicity; I just think that some of us deserve the recognition for the contributions we make.  Two of my former colleagues at Iowa Independent have already talked a bit about this subject (see Chase Martyn’s initial post here and read Ben Weyl’s abbreviated response here) and I think it is one worth further discussion as we continue to build Iowa’s blogosphere.

This week’s round-up comes courtesy of Betsy at BlueNC. -Chris

Happy New Year and Congratulations to Iowa Democrats on the excellent turnout for yesterday’s caucuses.

Below is an abbreviated roundup for our 50-State community blogs. Enjoy reading up on what’s important in states across the country. Onward to New Hampshire!

Go to the extended entry to read more…

UPDATE (3:40 PM): I just got a fundraising email from Joe Trippi on behalf of the Edwards campaign.  Seems like they’re going to keep piling on the money today. -Chris

I’m not one big on making releases front-page material here on BH, but I’ll try to condense this release from the Edwards Campaign to something we can talk about, with the full release available here:

“We have been absolutely overwhelmed by the response to Sen. Edwards’ strong finish in Iowa,” said Edwards’ senior strategist Joe Trippi. “We’re on track for our best online fundraising day ever, since www.JohnEdwards.com went up a year ago – and half of the contributions we’re seeing are from new donors to the campaign. That speaks volumes to the strength of John Edwards’ message of standing up and fighting for the middle class.”

The campaign first saw an uptick in online fundraising late last night, as the results from Iowa’s first-in-the-nation contest began rolling in. The surge continued overnight, and by 8:45am ET this morning the campaign’s online contributions had already topped the previous day’s day-long total. Between the hours of 10:00am and 11:00am ET today, the campaign experienced its best online fundraising hour ever.”

I’m not sure what this means in the grand scheme of online fundraising for the top-tier Democrats, or even the Edwards campaign itself since there aren’t really specific numbers and totals.  However, I think it will be really interesting to see what Obama and Clinton are seeing in terms of their own online fundraising and I hope they put out some information about those numbers soon.

A couple other quick facts from the Edwards campaign:

• Half of those who have contributed are first-time donors to the campaign
• More than ninety percent (92.6%) of today’s online contributions are for amounts less than $100

Those are some pretty impressive figures.  Let me know if you hear of any more numbers or interesting stories.

Thanks to all of our visitors yesterday.  To the best of my knowledge it was one of Bleeding Heartland’s busiest days ever as we gathered over 2,000 visits and over 3,300 page views.

Now that the caucuses over, it doesn’t mean we’re finished here with insightful content.  We’ll be shifting back to covering Iowa politics, still with an eye on the presidential race.  Iowa is bound to be a swing-state again this fall (but with the turnout numbers from the caucuses in tow, I think Democrats will pull out the win).

We’ve got a lot of coverage that will likely cover the new legislative session as well as Sen. Tom Harkin’s re-election race, and all of the drama and intrigue surrounding Iowa’s House races.  One race we’ll likely be keeping a close eye on is the  emerging IA-03 primary race between incumbent Democrat Leonard Boswell and former state representative and gubernatorial candidate Ed Fallon.

This is Iowa’s community blog for liberals, Democrats, progressives, and whatever else you wanna call yourselves.  Join up, post your thoughts in comments and diaries, and help strengthen the netroots in Iowa.

Chris Dodd and Joe Biden have both decided to leave the presidential race and will be going back to the Senate.  I wish them the best of luck.  In the extended entry, you can read Dodd’s remarks to supporters and you can read the release from Biden’s campaign.

On behalf of Iowa Democrats and the Bleeding Heartland community, let me say thank you to both Senators for their remarkable fight and effort they put into the caucuses.  Without Biden, we wouldn’t be able to have the serious debate about the future of Iraq like we’ve been able to have.  Without Dodd, things like FISA and restoring the Constitution would have been tossed aside.  These men have extraordinary experience and are good leaders for the Democratic party.

We Iowans are interesting people.  Of all the Senators and former Senators in the race, we picked the one with the least experience in that institution.  Maybe it is because of his message of hope, of unity, of change.  But we also looked past a combined 50+ years of experience in the Senate.  Is that a bad thing?  I don’t know.  I hope not.

However, these two men can now head back to the Senate and keep working hard for our majorities in Congress.  And pressing this reckless President for change.  Dodd can keep fighting and filibustering.  And who knows, maybe we’ll see one of these men later on as a vice president.

Or maybe as the new Senate Democratic leader.

One more time, thank you!

Wow, I just got done with my precinct caucus–I was chair and had to tally results.  Des Moines 4 went for Sen. Barack Obama, but just barely.  He left with two delegates, two for John Edwards, and one for Hillary Clinton.

Let me know what’s going on in your caucus. We had amazing turnout–122 people–with almost 40 newly registered Democrats who were formerly registered as no party or Republicans.  And they came to caucus for all three of the big name candidates.

What’s on your mind?  And how about these turnout results?  Seriously, 221,000 Democrats as of right now. Over 100,000 Republicans.  That’s over 300,000 Iowans.

Eat it, Markos. Iowans turnout. And we take things seriously.

In a little more than 30 minutes, Des Moines-based KCCI TV will release their last Iowa caucus poll that will show that Iowa Democrats are equally divided in their support for presidential candidates Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Barack Obama.

Lee Newspapers was also involved in the polling effort (whether through helping pay for it, sponsoring it, etc.) and they published their story online with the numbers earlier today.

“The poll, conducted with 500 likely caucus goers from each party on Wednesday and Thursday, showed Edwards and Obama tied with 29 percent to lead Democrats, followed by Clinton with 28 percent. Bill Richardson was fourth with 7 percent. Joe Biden was fifth with 3 percent. Chris Dodd and Dennis Kucinich both had 1 percent and 2 percent were undecided.”

The margin of error was +/- 4.5%, clearing showing that Democrats were equally divided.  Among Democrats, 19% still said they are likely or very likely to change their minds.  Keep an eye on Iowa Democrats’ second choices.

In other news, keep your ears open for message testing calls or “push polls.”  Desmoinesdem highlighted her husband’s call here and I just received the same call.  Make sure to check out the Off The Bus site about polling experience if you’ve received any calls.

Potential sleeper candidate Joe Biden picked up two more state legislator endorsements this morning.  From a Biden for President campaign release:

“Today, Sen. Joe Biden received endorsements from two key Iowa elected officials.  State Representatives Dennis Cohoon of Burlington and Eric Palmer of Oskaloosa become the 15th and 16th Iowa State legislators to endorse Sen. Biden.  

“I am supporting Sen. Biden because he’s the most prepared to be president from Day One,” said Rep. Cohoon.  “And as a high school special education teacher for thirty years, I know Sen. Biden can accomplish the education reforms we need to get kids in preschool earlier and give them the opportunity to go to college.”

Rep. Palmer stressed Sen. Biden’s experience in world affairs and his commitment to civil rights: “The Des Moines Register talked about knowledge and experience in their endorsement. To me Joe Biden exhibits real knowledge and experience in foreign affairs and his understanding of the constitution, both qualities not exhibited by this White House.  As Vice-Chair of the House Judiciary Committee, I am particularly impressed with Sen. Biden’s expertise in constitutional law, which will be critical to getting America back on track.””

Like the release says, that brings his endorsement total to 16.  And trust me, that’s a lot in the state legislator race and puts him just behind Clinton and Obama.  That bodes well for Biden in terms of organization and contacts.  State legislators have strong local connections that help them get elected in the first place.  Their opinion matters if nothing more than to help Iowans pick a solid second choice.

Now, don’t get me wrong, these endorsements aren’t going to catapult Joe Biden into the top three.  But they could help him a lot.  If any of the three front-runners do poorly in terms of rural organizing or see troubles in viability, Joe Biden could see a boost.  And with his Iraq policy and seriousness he still captures Iowans’ attention to at least listen to him.  The question is what kind of crowd will show up to the caucuses on January 3rd.

We’re officially two weeks out from the Iowa Caucuses now and it is anyone’s guess as to what is going to happen.  We’ve got a variety of polls that say John Edwards might be leading, might not be if you look at the other numbers from the same poll, ABC News/Washington Post says Obama leads, and CNN/Opinion Research Corp. says that it is basically a three-way tie.

In the end it is important to remember, as Jerome says, polling in Iowa is bizarre.  Iowans are fickle, we stay undecided for a long time, and our second choices matter.  But keep in mind the Insider Advantage polling is worth concern simply because of some mathematical and statistical issues.

And finally, as we get closer to the Caucuses, you’re going to be seeing a bunch more ads.  Below the fold are the two new ads from Chris Dodd and Joe Biden.

I’m not sure why this story wasn’t reported more or that no one was really covering this event, but it looks like Iowa Secretary of State Mike Mauro has endorsed Hillary Clinton.

“Mauro made his announcement Wednesday at an event in Des Moines, according to a Clinton campaign statement. He says the New York senator stands out among the other candidates and doesn’t have a “learning curve.”

Mauro says no one is more qualified or ready to lead than Clinton.”

This isn’t that big of a deal for Clinton’s campaign, but it is worthwhile to note that Clinton now has an elected statewide Democrat supporting her candidacy.

That means that Gov. Culver and Lt. Gov. Patty Judge are the only statewide elected Democrats not endorsing someone.  Iowa State Treasurer Mike Fitzgerald and Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller have endorsed Barack Obama.

I’m not sure if there are any other major Iowa endorsements left, but things are really beginning to get locked up now.  Two weeks out and we’re down to the field game.  

I can’t say I’m going to miss his racist remarks about immigrants and his fear-mongering.  From the Des Moines Register:

“Republican presidential candidate Tom Tancredo has scheduled a 2 p.m. press conference on Thursday to make a “major announcement.”

Tancredo, a Colorado congressman, has no other campaign events scheduled in Iowa after tomorrow’s announcement, said Alan Moore, Tancredo’s press secretary.”

My bet is that he drops out.  Good riddance.

This morning, the Iowa City Press-Citizen endorsed Barack Obama for president.  They wrote:

“Obama has the right vision for a new national politics and a new global reputation. He now needs voters and supporters who will help him transform that vision into reality. It’s a transformation that should have started three years ago. Neither the nation nor the world can wait any longer.”

It is a pretty well-written endorsement which also highlights the positives of the other Democratic candidates and specifically looks at restoring America’s image abroad and here at home.

While I disagree with their analysis on Obama’s healthcare proposal, I think that discussion of the issue is an important step to truly making universal healthcare a priority point of discussion in American politics.

On the Republican side, with only two Republican candidate visits to Johnson County’s paper of record, the editorial staff went with Mike Huckabee over Ron Paul.

Cross-posted at Political Forecast.

I just wanted to let you all know that I’ve joined a program with the Media Bloggers Association and Newsweek Magazine to syndicate my writing from here at Bleeding Heartland on a new special page on Newsweek.com called “The Ruckus.”  That means that Iowa Caucus news will be reported nationally from a Democrat on the ground.

Here’s what The Ruckus is all about:

“The blog will feature posts from nine MBA-member bloggers about the presidential campaign on a single page, giving Newsweek.com readers a convenient sampling of some of the best political blogging from across the country and from key primary states.”

The other bloggers who will be participating in the program are:

• John Amato, crooksandliars.com
• Faye Anderson, andersonatlarge.typepad.com
• Dean Barker, bluehampshire.com
• Adam Fogle, palmettoscoop.com
• Joe Gandelman, themoderatevoice.com
• James Joyner, outsidethebeltway.com
• Ed Morrissey, captainsquartersblog.com
• Oliver Willis, oliverwillis.com

I hope you check out their writing as well, and wish me luck!

UPDATE: As I predicted, they chose Clinton. I had a feeling they would go with the choice of most of the Des Moines business elite.-desmoinesdem

The speculation is swirling and the rumor mill is working at full force today as the Des Moines Register is set to endorse a candidate in their Sunday edition–which will likely be revealed later tonight.

As Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post notes here it is a pretty big deal.  Jeff Zeleny, Register alum and now New York Times reporter, describes the effort of some campaigns to win the endorsement here.

Here’s a sample of some of what’s being said right now.  Ben Smith at the Politico says:

“But I hesitate to predict: Newspaper endorsements are notoriously neurotic, and driven by internal dynamics and the writers’ image of themselves as much as by anything easily predictable.”

I’m not sure how true that is at the Register, but I’ve been trying to work sources in the newsroom and all I know is that the Democrats have been fighting hard for the endorsement.

Marc Ambinder says the endorsement will drop soon:

“….probably in the early evening… and no one knows who… although all the campaigns have guesses, and at least one of them has an office pool.”

I know most of the campaigns will have folks down at Register HQ trying to get the first early copy and report back as soon as they can.

And finally, the biggest gossip so far, comes from the Hotline:

“Buzz is that the odds are with Barack Obama…

The paper’s support for John Edwards in 2004 catapulted him to a second place caucus finish. This year, though, he competes for the nod with a ‘fresher’ face in Obama.

Obama’s anti-war position could be the deal sealer. Edwards supported the 2002 Iraq war resolution, but has since said the vote was a mistake.”

They’re the only ones predicting so far…at least that I can find.  So, consider that a bold prediction.

I won’t make any predictions or offer any odds.  But how about you guys?  Who do you think will get the endorsement?  All I’ll guess is that it will be one of the top tier candidates: Clinton, Edwards, or Obama.  Vote below the fold.

How concerned are Iowans about caucus voting?  Like we’ve been talking about over this past week, there has been stupid controversy about college students participating in the Iowa caucuses.  The answer is: YES, as a student in Iowa you can caucus.  Now, the other part of the controversy has been about out-of-state campaign volunteers and staffers who come into Iowa and whether or not they should participate.

Let’s get things clear first.  Iowa law says that if you’ve been a resident for at least 10 days, you can register to vote in Iowa.  That’s the law.  To me, the spirit of the law then, as it would impact the caucuses, is that those who are truly committed to this state and their livelihood here–not simply because of a campaign, but because of school, work, and family–should be one’s caucusing.

Yet somehow, among all of this, the campaigns and the media seem to think that there is going to be a massive influx of volunteers and staffers who are going to do irreparable harm to the caucuses and basically cheat so that one candidate can win.  That’s like thinking that Dennis Kucinich really did see a UFO, and is, in fact, an extraterrestrial himself.

And KCCI here in Des Moines isn’t helping the matter.  Their story, headlined “Iowans Concerned About Caucus Voting: Out-Of State Operatives Flooding Iowa,” is mind-boggling simply because they don’t note a single ordinary Iowan who is concerned about out-of-staters voting.  It is merely an argument between campaigns that has blown up into a political worthless and quite petty tiff that just makes the campaigns look downright juvenile.

There really isn’t any concern among Iowa voters, or the campaigns.  Some candidates just wanted to gain traction and media attention by having other candidates sign their pledge.

Memo to the campaigns: Skip the hysterics, focus on the mobilization of Iowa voters, and play it fair.  It is just that simple.

Cross-posted at Political Forecast.

Well, now that we’re less than three weeks out from the Iowa Precinct Caucuses, it is time for me to make a tough decision: Who am I going to caucus for?

After watching the debates, attending events, reading the profiles, and listening to my friends I decided that it was time to face the tough decision.  Our field of Democratic candidates is an amazing spectrum of leadership, experience, and real desire for change.  I would be proud to call any of these candidates our nominee.

Why did I hold off so long in making my decision?  There were numerous reasons, but the primary one was that I wanted to make sure I was going to remain unbiased for as long as possible in my coverage of the candidates and to maintain a level of openness on both Political Forecast and Bleeding Heartland.  But the time has truly come to pick a candidate.  And for me, the candidate of choice is John Edwards.

A new Research 2000 poll for the Quad-City Times shows Barack Obama with a 9-point lead over Hillary Clinton and John Edwards.  Here are the overall results (500 likely caucus-goers with a margin of error of +/- 4.5%):

Barack Obama 33%

Hillary Clinton 24%

John Edwards 24%

Bill Richardson 9%

Joe Biden 3%

Chris Dodd 1%

Dennis Kucinich 1%

It is still clearly a three-person race, with the slight advantage to Obama.  To me, this is the key result from the poll:

“The poll also indicated an unsettled electorate, with 23 percent of Democrats and 34 percent of Republicans saying they were likely or very likely to change their minds before the caucuses. Only a third of Democrats, 33 percent, and just more than a quarter of Republicans, 27 percent, said they were not at all likely to change their minds. The rest, 44 percent on the Democratic side and 39 percent on the Republican side, said they are not very likely to change.”

The race is still quite fluid and second choices are definitely going to matter come caucus night when some candidate preference groups won’t be able to get viability.

You can get the full PDF of the results from Research 2000 here.  They’re usually a pretty reliable polling firm when it comes to general election or primary polling, but I don’t know where they’re at in terms of accuracy for polling the caucuses.

Does this mean Edwards can still win the Iowa caucuses?  I think so.  And Mike Lux at Open Left says we should keep our eyes on him.

UPDATE (11 AM): I got the email to supporters announcing the endorsement about 45 minutes ago.  The full text is below the fold.

– – – – –

The word on the street is that Hillary Clinton is going to be receiving the endorsement of central Iowa Congressman Leonard Boswell.  He is supposed to be doing it sometime today after Clinton tapes an appearance on IPTV’s Iowa Press.

To me, the endorsement won’t matter much to many Democrats.  While Boswell has done a lot for Iowans in his years representing Iowa, he doesn’t have the kind of youth and leadership potential that folks like Bruce Braley have.  He’s an elderly man, and a very conservative Democrat.  And for those committed caucus-goers, I don’t think this endorsement will change anything or mean that much.

What have you heard?  And do you think the endorsement matters?

I’m sitting in front of my TV trying to examine what the cable networks are saying about the debate.  The first network showing coverage was Fox News and their pundits were generally annoying and conservative; essentially, they weren’t worth their time.  But when they got to their focus group/panel of undecided caucus-goers done by Frank Luntz, they said that John Edwards won the debate.

I’m going to argue that John Edwards did indeed win the debate.  He articulated a coherent message that blamed corruption, greed, and entrenched interests for the problems America faces.  He also clearly told viewers that the only way to enact the policies and proposals that the candidates have promised is to elect a president that will unite America to stand up and fight back against these people.  His criticisms were constant, his answers honest, and his leadership potential was clear.  He told us how he is fighting for the middle class, and how he’s the candidate to truly enact change.

I’m always impressed with Obama’s rhetoric on the stump and during rallies, but I can’t seem to be impressed with his debating skills.  Maybe I’m just missing something.  And Hillary Clinton seemed like she was just there to give canned responses.  But I do have to admit they were honest and presidential sounding.  Joe Biden came to the debate with heart and passion, and even managed to keep his answers succinct.  Chris Dodd was presidential and brought the experience necessary to lead.  I was surprised how the speaking time was pretty equally divided, but amazed that Bill Richardson got the most time.  His answers and policies were good, but he seemed like he just had a list of issues and was rattling them off.

All in all, however, I’d be proud to have any of these candidates to be my presidential nominee.

In my mind, the debate was timid enough to declare any candidate a winner for the right reasons.  We want you to tell us who your winner was and why.

In about 8 minutes, the Des Moines Register’s Democratic Debate will start.  I’ll be doing what I can to live blog it–after the debate is over, I’ll move most of it to below the feed.

And if you’re interested, the Dodd Campaign will again be doing their talk clock:

Let’s go below the fold to read the re-cap…

Today at 11 AM Central Time, any and all comments to the Federal Election Commission on their pending decision regarding presidential primary matching funds on contributions received through ActBlue are due.

Multiple organizations are vocally opposing this ban, as it effectively disregards ActBlue’s nature as a grassroots fundraising system and largely violates the meaning of matching funds through public funding.  As the netroots’ own Adam Bonin wrote in his letter to the FEC on behalf of DailyKos and BlogPAC:

Obviously, while ActBlue is a “political committee” in the strictest sense of the term, in reality it does not act as such.  ActBlue is a conduit for individual contributor preferences, to track and aggregate small-dollar contributors.  It asserts no control over the recipients of its funds; the site’s only criteria is that the recipient be a Democrat. It fulfills FECA’s anticorruption goals by reporting contributors’ names, addresses, employers, and occupations to campaign, which in turn provide that information to the Commission as is legally required.

This is a clear a case as any of reformers accomplishing via technology what law alone cannot do: leveling the playing field between moneyed interests and small-dollar contributors by allowing anyone to become a “bundler”, and to allow such contributors to have visual, real-time confirmation of their impact upon the process.  In the same way that the public financing system itself is designed to encourage and magnify the impact of small-dollar contributions, ActBlue facilitates those contributions occurring in the first place.

If you’re at all interested in supporting the Edwards campaign’s position–which isn’t a tacit endorsement, but an affirmation of your belief in grassroots fundraising–please make sure to submit your comments.  You can see more by reading desmoinesdem’s earlier post here.

You can do that in a variety of ways:

– Visit JohnEdwards.com and send a comment through our simple form.

– Write an E-mail to Mary Dove, the FEC Commission Secretary at mdove@fec.gov

– Fax your comments to the Secretary at (202) 208-3333 and to FEC’s Office of General Counsel at (202) 219-3923

– Sign the letter from Public Campaign

Sorry tonight’s post is late and the past couple of days have been missing.  Remember way back when, when you had to write research papers and prepare for finals?  Welcome to my life at this point.

Anyway, tomorrow is the final Democratic debate of the season as the Des Moines Register hosts the debate in IPTV studios in Johnston.  Today’s Republican debate was criticized as being pretty tame and uninteresting, so I’m wondering if the Democratic affair will be just the same?

And what will the Republicans think about the questions posed by Carolyn Washburn after it was revealed that she violated Register policies and participated in the 2006 Democratic gubernatorial primary here in Iowa?

The blogosphere has been ablaze this week after Register columnist David Yepsen’s piece about trying to preserve the sanctity of the Iowa Caucuses by essentially banning out-of-state students attending school in Iowa from coming back to Iowa to caucus.

First of all, I think desmoinesdem is right with her post here calling for Yepsen to apologize to Obama.  As Obama’s been the most vocal of the Democrats calling for students to come back and caucus, he’s been the brunt of Yepsen’s attacks.  Instead, the Obama campaign has been busy fighting with the good progressive ally Paul Krugman instead of David Yepsen who often will smack down truly progressive ideas without indulging them fully or honestly.  So, while the Obama campaign may desperately want the Register’s endorsement, challenging his assertions and his problematic claims against students may do even more to boost your campaign than the endorsement.  But that’s another story entirely.

But secondly, I felt it was my place to respond as a college student (admittedly from Iowa) with many, many friends from outside of Iowa who plan on staying in the state to caucus.  These students spend at least nine months of the year here in the state and have the choice to register to vote here as Iowans.  When you spend 3/4 of your year in a state where you pay income tax on any jobs you might have and pay the local sales tax it seems quite clear to me that you ought to have a say in the elections the state holds, no matter who the candidates are.  The Iowa Democratic Party agrees.  From a statement released this afternoon by IDP Chair Scott Brennan:

“In running the First in the Nation Caucuses, the Iowa Democratic Party follows the Iowa Code in determining the eligibility of potential caucus goers. According to the Iowa Code, all college students who are at least 18 years old are eligible to vote and, therefore, eligible to caucus.

Any student who attends an Iowa college or university may participate in the Iowa caucuses provided they are 18 by November 4, 2008, and are a registered Democrat in the precinct in which they wish to caucus.

The Iowa Democratic Party encourages all eligible caucus goers to attend their precinct caucuses on January 3rd to strengthen the Democratic Party and declare their presidential preference.”

It is really just that simple.  And like others before me have said, David Yepsen is just being elitist in this column and implying tactics that are shady when in fact they’re completely legitimate and legal.

What is even worse is that some presidential campaigns are still agreeing with the rhetoric calling for all out-of-staters to stay away from the caucuses.  While Clinton’s campaign has been back-tracking, they still can’t offer a full answer on whether students from outside Iowa should caucus.  Chris Dodd’s campaign is the one that started the pledge, and both Biden and Richardson have tacitly or overtly signed on and offered rhetoric in support of the policy.  This is absurd to me, and I hope that the campaigns are questioned about this in tomorrow’s Register Democratic debate.  But I doubt it will come up.

And, just to rub it in David Yepsen’s face, here is the Drake student newspaper’s article on how students can sign-up to stay overnight in the Olmsted Center–Drake’s student union–and caucus on January 3rd.

College students in Iowa, stand up and have your voices heard!

Tonight’s gonna be an open thread, simply because I’m exhausted from a weekend of paper writing.

What’s on your mind?  What will the big political stories in Iowa and elsewhere be this week?

Tonight’s topic: What the hell is Fred Thompson thinking?

I just don’t get this.  Thompson is a former member of the United States Senate and he honestly thinks that the National Intelligence Estimate is something to be “suspicious” of?  Sure, so it may have said something different two years ago than it does today.  But I’m pretty sure with our long-term presence in Iraq that even Thompson can admit our intelligence gathering options have to have gotten a bit better in that area, particularly in terms of getting first-hand information.

Then again, maybe I’m just naive.

Today’s topic: What will be the headline story on January 4th?

Imagine it is 8 AM on Friday, January 4th.  Last night were the Iowa precinct caucuses.  What is the headline going to be on the Des Moines Register’s front page?  What will the morning shows and cable networks be talking about?  Will the news coverage have a focus on the Democratic results or the Republican results?

These are all important questions going into the caucuses.  For the Democrats, our presumed front-runners all could easily win the Iowa Caucuses.  That means they all could meet expectations.  And in the news business, your story isn’t newsworthy unless you’re doing worse or better than expectations–or you’ve turned them on their head.

On the Republican side, the story and expectations for the past few months have been that Mitt Romney is going to win the Iowa Caucuses for the Republicans.  Now that Mike Huckabee has surged into the lead, we’ve seen the change in tales coming out of Iowa.

But as Marc Ambinder speculates here this could be a gift or blessing in disguise to Mitt Romney.  If Huckabee’s surge is soft or just heightened by favorable coverage up until this week, a potential tanking and resurgence on caucus day for Mitt Romney entirely changes the story in Iowa (again) and makes Republicans the dominant story out of Iowa.

What does that do to Democrats?  I’m not sure.  I’ve only really paid particular to attention to one caucus and the momentum coming out of it for Kerry pushed him to strong victory in New Hampshire.  And Bush had no opponent, so I can’t gauge the Republicans.

So here’s my question: What will the story be on January 4, 2008?  Will it be an expectations met story?  Or will it be a topsy-turvy story of surprising results from Democrats or Republicans?

It is still a tight race on the Democratic side between Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Barack Obama, while on the Republican side Mike Huckabee has surged past Mitt Romney to take a commanding lead in Iowa according to the latest Newsweek Iowa Caucus polling released this afternoon.

Here are the Democratic results among likely caucus-goers, with all Democrats polled in parentheses (Republicans are below the fold):

Barack Obama 35% (29%)

Hillary Clinton 29% (30%)

John Edwards 18% (21%)

Bill Richardson 9% (11%)

Joe Biden 4% (2%)

Dennis Kucinich * (1%)

Chris Dodd * (*)

Other candidate 0% (0%)

Undecided 5% (6%)

Only 395 were identified as likely caucus-goers, meaning that the margin of error among those likely caucus-goers is +/-6%.  If you take the MOE for all 673 polled, it is still +/-5%.  Clearly, Obama comes across as the front-runner from the looks of the polls, with Edwards still hanging out.  I’d say that the polling doesn’t accurately reflect Edwards’ stance all that much and we all know that his 2004 infrastructure is still largely in place giving him quite the advantage in that arena.

A couple of things to take from the results.  First of all, it looks like contrary to popular belief Barack Obama may be doing better with those who are already more likely to attend their precinct caucus.  Thus, expanding the universe of potential caucus-goers for Obama might actually be more detrimental.  Same goes for Joe Biden.  However, when you include all of those Democrats polled Clinton, Edwards, and Richardson all gain.  To me that means: a) Obama has more committed supporters ready to say they’re going to caucus, or b) Obama’s support in the so-called “expansion universe” of potential caucus-goers isn’t as strong as the conventional wisdom says.  These are both assumptions on my part and there is always room for other interpretation, but that’s what I’m seeing here.

The second specific point about the poll was that they polled second choices as well, which Bleeding Heartland reader RF noted earlier this week in a comment.  These totals are going to add to more than 100%, but here are the net first/second choice support totals for the candidates, with likely caucus-goers as the first number and all Democrats polled in parentheses:

Barack Obama 55% (50%)

Hillary Clinton 50% (51)

John Edwards 45% (44%)

Bill Richardson 16% (17%)

Joe Biden 11% (8%)

Chris Dodd 2% (1%)

Dennis Kucinich * (1%)

Other candidate * (*)

Undecided 5% (6%)

Again, to me this confirms that the race in Iowa is still a strong three-way race between Clinton, Edwards, and Obama.  The gap in first/second choice support is only 10% among likely caucus-goers (and 7% among the rest of Democrats) while there is a 17% gap among likely’s in first choice and 9% among all Democrats.  Things are still tightly wound among Iowa Democrats.

You can see the full poll results here in PDF form courtesy of Newsweek.  Their story on the poll is here.

UPDATE from desmoinesdem: just wanted to note that the one celebrating the birthday is Robert P of BlueNC, who did this compilation.

Today’s 50-state blog roundup is brought to you by the letters B, N, and

C – BlueNC. Major, major hat-tip to

Betsy, who really did all the work. If you aren’t reading your state’s

blog, you should be, because “all politics is local” should be more than

a motto. This is an interesting week, the Presidential Primary is

heating up in the early states (see below), while Virginia holds a

special election next Tuesday. At the same time state legislatures seem

to be trying and sneak in some iffy legislation before the holiday

season. Enjoy!

p.s. It’s my birthday this weekend, I’ll keep celebrating until I turn 40.



Advertise on the 50 State Blog Network.

See the roundup below the fold…

Exactly four weeks from today over 150,000 Iowa Democrats will gather in areas across the state to voice their support for their chosen candidate in a field of eight Democrats, six of them seen as serious contenders and candidates.

Today’s topic will be polling.  It seems like there is going to be a new poll for almost every day until we get to January 3rd when one man or woman will finally emerge as a winner.  But a lot of questions remain.  Which polls do you trust?  Which polls do you toss aside like garbage?  Which polls more accurately predict Iowans voting habits than others?  Are the polling outlets partisan?

These are all good questions.  In addition to asking ordinary Iowa bloggers their thoughts about the polls, it is always good to check out the fine folks over at Pollster.com and read their analysis of all of the polls released in the lead up to the caucuses.  Specifically, if you’re interested in tracking the trends and compiled (or specific) poll results, their specific page on the Iowa Democratic Caucuses is quite worthwhile.

But if you ask me, the most reliable and accurate polling done in Iowa is usually done by Selzer and Co., the folks who do the Des Moines Register’s Iowa Poll.  You can find the poll’s homepage here on the Register’s site.  Past articles about the most recent polling highlight things like methodology and other information garnered from the polling.

One of the most intriguing results I’ve noticed from the last poll (and Yepsen noticed it too) is that about half of Democrats and over 60% of Republicans say they could still be persuaded to change their mind.  Coincidently enough, I’m probably one of those people.  I’ve got two candidates that I support but every day that I think I’ve picked one I feel like I might go back towards the other.  So I’m pretty sure that once I pick one candidate I could easily be persuaded to go back to another.

To me, that is emblematic of Iowans’ fickle-ness, which definitely isn’t a bad thing.  It means that many of us are still listening and haven’t isolated ourselves off for one particular candidate already.  While that makes the individual campaigns’ jobs harder it means that negative ads, events, and issues still matter.

And truly, if polling isn’t telling the accurate story (or so you think), get out there and work harder for the candidate or issue you’re caucusing for.  I know it is the holiday season but as Iowans we’re privileged to have this role of first-in-the-nation.  And by God let’s use it.

Ok, so this isn’t exactly a timely post for my “daily” caucus countdown feature, but this will be a quick post with more detailed ones to come over time.

Who are you caucusing for?  And why (as simply put as possible, please)?  Finally, if for some reason your candidate isn’t viable, who would your second choice be?

I asked this question over at my site and I’m hoping that a broader audience here at BH will give me a greater idea and provoke some good discussion.

I’m going to try and start a new feature that will bring about a daily post specifically about the Iowa Precinct Caucuses, which are now only 30 days away.

As a history primer, I recommend checking out Hugh Winebrenner’s quick piece on the the history of the caucuses that he wrote for IowaPolitics.com.

And how do you caucus?  First of all, check out desmoinesdem’s post series (parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6) on how the caucuses work.  Secondly, check out the IDP’s FAQs on the caucuses.

And finally, some of the campaigns and groups have started making videos on how to caucus.  Check them out below the fold.

Let me know if you have thoughts on more daily features and things you want to see in the comments.

This weekend the Democratic candidates for president will be cris-crossing the state, particularly around the Des Moines area to attend several debates and forums hosted by a variety of groups.

First, early Saturday afternoon, five Democrats (Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd, John Edwards, Dennis Kucinich, and Barack Obama) will face questions from real folks from around Iowa at the Heartland Presidential Forum which is hosted by Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement, the Center for Community Change, and a variety of other organizations.  The format differs from typical debates as the candidates will be on stage with real people who tell their stories and ask their questions, hoping for a direct answer.  You can find out more about the event here.

Later that evening is the Iowa Brown and Black Presidential Forum, affiliated with Urban Dreams and broadcast live by HDNet television.  All eight of the presidential candidates will be participating in the debate live at North High School in Des Moines.  More information here.

Finally, next Tuesday is the NPR/Iowa Public Radio Democratic Presidential Candidates’ Debate which will be broadcast on NPR and be available as a webstream on NPR’s website.  The six major candidates will be participating.  You can submit your questions for the debate here.

Are you planning on going to these debates?  Or watching them?  If so, feel free to blog about about them here.  We want coverage and we want your thoughts.  Who seemed the most real?  Who had the right take on the issues?  Who did the audience respond to?  These are questions that committed activists like yourselves can answer better than the political pundits and the campaigns themselves.

One more quick question: Have any of you loyal readers heard about the problems involving the Brown and Black Forum that Chase Martyn writes about here at Iowa Independent?  I know that members of my family have been looking for a way to purchase or get tickets to the event (being families from the area with children at North High–the location housing the event–should be a pretty good reason) but the only information they could find is calling Urban Dreams.  When my family member called Urban Dreams earlier this week, they had no idea how the tickets were being distributed.

Any ideas?

This week’s roundup is brought to you by Clem Guttata of West Virginia Blue with a major assist from Mike Paulle. Thank you Mike!

Over at OpenLeft Chris Bowers has announced the winners of the First Annual BlogPAC Progressive Entrepreneurs Contest.  Here is how he summarizes what they’ve been doing:

“Five weeks ago, BlogPac put out a call to “find the five best new, grassroots progressive infrastructure projects in America, and provide those projects with the money, exposure, and connections necessary to get off the ground.” Originally, I had scheduled the announcement of the winners for the contest on Thursday, August 2nd. However, due to the sheer volume of submissions, over 100, and to the high quality of many of those submissions, it took us a much longer time to reach a decision than I had originally envisioned.”

This has been an amazing endeavor and a lot of great applications went through and the winners are very deserving.

However, the reason I’m posting the link to Bowers’ post is to get you all to go over and look at the winners’ project descriptions but I also wanted to highlight one of the winners.

“The Candidate Source internet video project, submitted by Brian Amos on behalf of CandidateSource.com. Candidate Source is a project to transcribe and catalog political content found on video sharing sites like YouTube, including stump speeches, debates, and interviews.  It will be launched on September 1st, and create a free, large, fully searchable database of political video featuring speeches and interviews with both Democratic and Republican candidates. Anyone will be able to search for video by the candidates who appear in it, topics discussed, or quotes contained in it.  Once launched, progressive activists will be able to find particularly eloquent or explanatory speeches from her or his favorite candidates, and also to check for inconsistency in opposing candidates. Further, bloggers, mainstream media, or even an average citizen will be able to easily compare candidate stances on a certain issue. This project will help further engage people-powered activism in American politics.

Brian Amos is the brother of a good friend of mine from Drake and I’m really excited that this project is coming to fruition and hopefully going to take off.

Brian’s brother first introduced me to the proposal last spring and I told him it was a great idea and to go forward with it.  I haven’t heard from him much over the summer, as the brothers Amos have been on a student-run film tour across the country this summer called Student Films Across America.  Hopefully, as classes start up I’ll be able to offer you some more information about CandidateSource.com and hopefully will be able to invite the brothers to come to Bleeding Heartland and talk about the project.

As I learn more about the project I will make sure to fill you in.  But keep your eyes on the site–it should hopefully uncover another “macaca moment” for the Republican candidates.

Sen. Hillary Clinton’s campaign will launch their first television ad (called “Invisibles”) in Iowa starting tomorrow, but those of us who like to use the amazing series of tubes known as the internets can see it today…and below:

It isn’t the typical biographical ad that a lot of candidates start off with, but that’s probably a good thing for Clinton considering she’s already pretty well-known and has decent name recognition.

In part, the ad is seeking not to introduce her to Iowans but to re-introduce her as the candidate who will focus on the ordinary Iowans and Americans as president.  It is supposed to be the “more caring” side of Hillary, not the supposedly “politically calculating and manipulative” version that we’ve heard about in the press since about 1991.  And in that endeavor, it succeeds.

To me, the one place that it does fail is with the background music.  I’m sorry, but it just seems cheesy and distracting.  The content of the ad, what Clinton says, is the real substance and I think it is quite good for a re-introduction.  However, she’s getting on TV late in the game.  Edwards, Dodd, Richardson, and Obama have already been on the air with introductions, bios, and ads talking about policy.  Clinton’s next step has got to be a policy ad.

All in all, it is a good ad that serves its purpose.  As the big money candidate, one might’ve expected something over-the-top and really professional looking…almost to a level that screams “I’m the typical politician and run those kind of TV ads.” But it was simple and concise and should resonate with Iowans.

And if she expects to build any more traction with committed activists and Democrats who will turn out in force on caucus day, she’ll have to start airing an ad about Iraq.  I predict the campaign isn’t looking forward to that day but with a clear, concise ad advocating ending the war and bringing the troops home will do wonders with those who don’t take the time to get out there and really see her on the stump.

Just back from the press conference at IDP Headquarters with Gov. Chet Culver, Secretary of State Mike Mauro, and IDP Chair Scott Brennan.  Culver made sure to emphasize that Iowa Democrats were still planning for January 14th precinct caucuses, but admitted the situation is and remains fluid, with a lot running on New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner’s decision when to hold his state’s primary, which by state law must happen seven days before any other primary.  Iowa state law says that Iowa’s caucuses must occur eight days before any other state selection process.

Culver started out the conference by announcing to Iowans that Christmas is going to happen in this state and that he expects to have the caucuses on January 14th.  Culver also said:

“We’re confident that work with our friends in New Hampshire, the Iowa Democratic Party, and the Democratic National Committee that Iowa is going to hold the lead-off caucus here.”

Obviously the situation is fluid, but nothing has changed the dates between Iowa and New Hampshire.  Until New Hampshire makes a change, we’re scheduled for January 14th.  We’re not interested in going in December.”

That appears to backtrack a bit from statements Culver made on Wednesday before Kay Henderson and other reporters when the rumors first began emerging that the South Carolina GOP would move their state primary to Jan. 19th, three days before New Hampshire’s scheduled (by the DNC) Jan. 22 primary.  Here’s what Culver said then:

“Would it be odd, having the Caucuses before Christmas?

“It’s challenging to get the Caucuses done period.  It requires a lot of work but I do know that Iowans are excited about participating in this presidential selection process and I don’t think as long as we give appropriate notice in timing that the date matters a whole lot.  We just need to get it set and hopefully, it’ll be the 14th.  If not, we’ll do what we have to do to keep the state first,” Culver said.”

Clearly, in the exchange with Henderson and others Culver indicated a preference and emphasis on the Jan. 14th date but by saying that date didn’t matter a whole lot.  The remarks above prompted Chase Martyn to call Culver out on his blog.

Yesterday Culver’s office issued a statement clarifying his support for the January date and today’s conference seemed to be a clear indication that he’s stepping aside — to some degree — to let the state Democratic party handle the matter, as is their prerogative and obligation.  As Secretary of State Mauro said today, the parties are the ones who control the caucuses, not the state government or the secretary of state’s office, as they do with regular elections.

A few other tid-bits from the presser.  Chairman Brennan did say he had been in touch with the Republican Party of Iowa about the situation, but said they were — as expected — a bit more focused on the Ames straw poll fundraiser tomorrow.  He also put the onus on New Hampshire in terms of defining how the Iowa Caucuses could play out with the Democrats and Republicans holding their caucuses on separate nights, as had been the tradition before 1980.  David Yepsen was the one who posed the question to Brennan and he said:

“New Hampshire will drive that.”

He emphasized that the tradition was to have the caucuses on the same nights, but there was no overall commitment to caucuses on the same nights if push came to shove.  That could make the caucuses even more of a spectacle with Democrats and Republicans crossing over into the opposite parties’ caucuses to pick the weaker or ‘crazier’ nominee.

Finally, the highlight of the conference for myself and Patrick Stansberry from Common Iowan, was a question from a reporter for WHO Radio asking if Culver “blamed the blogosphere for the speculation that Iowa’s caucuses might take place in December?”

Culver’s response was “Not at all.”  Thanks, Governor. 🙂

Welcome to this week’s roundup, brought to you by Clem G. of West Virginia Blue. So much for August as a slow news month… there’s plenty to dig into here.

Of Special Note

* Congratulations to The Albany Project. As Phillip Anderson puts it,

I’d have to say the highlight of our week was the Governor stopping by to congratulate us on a great convention in Chicago and inform our readers that he will soon be starting a regular liveblogging gig at The Albany Project. it’s pretty cool.

* MyLeftNutmeg recaps the many stories of the one year aniversary of Ned Lamont’s primary victory. Lamont’s victory, showing Democrats the power of embracing the Democratic Party, led directly to our 2008 general election gains.

Social, Economic and Environmental Justice

* Wasatch Watcher asks: Does mine boss Robert Murray care about the trapped miners?

* Square State has the sad story of Outrageous Discrimination Against Latino Citizens.

* RI Future questions why Republican Gov. Don Carcieri is using taxpayer dollars on a right-wing lawyer to oppose a same sex marriage dispute in the RI Supreme Court.

* Yoda of PrairieStateBlue walks a picket line with John Edwards.

* BlueMassGroup discusses the LGBT presidential forum.

* Left In The West has the reality-based view of Idaho’s wild fire season (it’s shaping up to be a bad one).

* BlueHampshire has a captivating diary on the need for substantive debate on predatory lending and mortgage servicing fraud (as well as the frustrations of being a citizen prop for a Presidential campaign).

* At TexasKaos the look into capital punishment rates and wonder why the state of Texas is so keen to kill its citizens.

All Politics are Local

* It’s impossible to keep up with everything in a huge state like California. For a one two stop hit of top stories, visit Calitics for this week’s roundup of state stories and highlight of Calitics local stories.

* Burnt Orange Report announces an exciting initiative: TexBlog PAC.

* Don’t let the Republicans find out, but Green Mountain Daily lets slip the news that sometimes government really does work.

* KeyStone Politics has the disappointing news of Philadelphia schools dropping “recognition months”.

On Blogging

*PrairieStateBlue writes in praise of lurkers.

* Bleeding Heartland wonders if political blogs have a higher tolerance for dissent than non-political blogs. Interesting question. What do you think?

* Turn Maine Blue lays down some guidelines for candidates posting on the front-page.

* The Daily Gotham tells “what we publish, how, and why”.

Candidates and Elections

* My Silver State tells of a encouraging visit (with video) by Obama to Elko.

* West Virginia Blue notes wildly popular Gov. Manchin may have long coat-tails with straight party ticket voting in West Virginia in 2008.

* Wasatch Watcher reports: Barack Obama stops over in Utah.

* Check out a new congressional candidate and a new (maybe) congressional candidate at Michigan Liberal.

* AZ Netroots continues their loud cry for help. Why isn’t there a Democratic challenger yet for AZ-01?

* In Watching the Right in Florida FLA Politics announces a network of blogs to, well, watch the right in Florida!

* Tondee’s Tavern is pleased Bill Gillespie is making moves to enter GA-01 race.

* At Blue Indiana, candidate Barry Walsh (IN-06) diaries about his formal announcement of candidacy.

* Daily Kingfish dissects the LA-GOV race to conclude… Jindal can be beaten.

* Blue Jersey makes the case against Republican Rep. Jim Saxton (NJ-03)

* BlueNC has some cool news. Dem. challenger Larry Kissell (NC-08) is welcoming Ambassador Joe Wilson to the state for a fund-raiser.

* Jerid reflects on his summer in New Hampshire for Buckeyestateblog.

* State Sen. Andrew Rice’s announcement of a U.S. Senate bid against Jim Inhofe is the big news at Blue Oklahoma.

* Horse’s Ass (WA) reminds us all why Darcy Burner is a netroots hero (w/ video)

Politicians, Governing and Mis-Governing

* From Michigan Liberal: the short-lived blog ban by the MI Senate is now over.

* Left In Alabama points out the self-serving nature of the Republican governor’s proposed reforms.

* Susan Collins (ME) is caught at Turn Maine Blue holding a farce of a virtual town hall meeting.

* Free State Politics reminds us, it’s not too early to start thinking about NCLB Reauthorization

* What is the connection between Peter Smith, Tim Pawlenty, and the I35 bridge collapse? MN Campaign Report has the answer.

* Fired Up! Missouri wonders why Gov. Matt Blunt is asking Supreme Court nominees 111 questions.

* NMFBIHOP notes the US Attorney scandal is refocusing on Republican Rep. Heather Wilson.

* Rumsfield v. Kucinich (video)is the highlight at AsOhioGoes.

* Upitty Wisconsin finds the ring wing compalining because Republican Attorney General follows the law.

* At West Virginia Blue Carnacki more attentions pays to what vulnerable Republian Rep. Capito (WV-02) does than what she says.

With this post I’m likely to become a fairly unpopular member of the liberal blogosphere, or at least the segment of bloggers like Markos who take pride in bashing Iowa’s first-in-the-nation status.  But as I wrote about on Bleeding Heartland yesterday and today on Political Forecast, the South Carolina GOP’s decision to move up their primary has created huge problems in the national calendar for selecting a nominee for president–and this is the case in both parties.

Carrie Giddins, the IDP’s Communications Director, released this statement earlier today:

“The South Carolina Republicans won’t dictate what Iowa does. The Iowa Democratic Party, our Chairman and our State Central Committee, will make a decision regarding the date of our caucuses with Governor Chet Culver, Senator Tom Harkin and other political leaders that protects Iowa’s interests.

The Iowa Caucuses are scheduled for January 14th, 2008 and we are moving forward with plans for that date.

Iowa will hold the first in the nation caucuses.”

Carrie’s pretty direct, and having met with her before, she’s serious when she says that Iowa will hold the nation’s first caucus.  And I’ve got no doubt that she and others inside the Iowa Democratic Party are pissed with Katon Dawson and South Carolina Republicans.  I’m sure folks at the Republican Party of Iowa are just as pissed as well.

To the best of my knowledge, on August 25th the DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee will be meeting in Washington, DC, and will be debating whether or not to penalize Florida Democrats because of the decision by the Florida legislature to move their primary from February 5th to January 29th.  The penalty Florida faces is basically a preliminary wrist-slap that says “we won’t seat your delegates at the DNC Convention next August.”  The thing is, whomever has the nomination is going to demand Florida’s delegates be seated–for all practical purposes the nominee trumps the existing DNC chair and will dictate from that point on what will happen.

However, last August the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee hammered out their new rules which would again penalize state parties as mentioned above, but also penalize candidates who campaigned in early states.  From the DNC website:

“There is a new rule that imposes new sanctions on presidential candidates. If a state, any state, violates the rule on timing/the window, presidential candidates will face sanctions if they campaign in that state. Examples of campaigning include: making personal appearances in the state, hiring campaign workers, and buying advertising and so on.

Currently, the only punishment for states that violate the window was on State Parties. This new enforcement provision recognizes that presidential candidates must also bear a responsibility in enforcing the window or face sanctions.”

The window the DNC is talking about is that on or after February 5th, every other state besides Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina could hold their state’s caucus or primary (effectively declaring that Tuesday to be the official “Super Tuesday”).

So what I’m looking for on August 25th in DC is for Iowa’s Democratic representative on the Rules and Bylaws Committee, First Vice Chair Sarah Swisher, to stand up and demand that Florida get their slap on the wrist as well as get a statement from the committee reaffirming its commitment that should any candidate campaign in Florida that they should be penalized.

As the New York Times reported after the new rules were passed:

“The sanctions will be directed at candidates who campaign in any state that refuses to follow a 2008 calendar of primaries and caucuses that was also approved Saturday. Any candidate who campaigns in a state that does not abide by the new calendar will be stripped at the party convention of delegates won in that state.”

Coincidently enough, even if Iowa is forced to move our caucus date before the DNC scheduled date of January 14th, we’re still safe from sanctions because Iowa Democrats don’t actually select delegates to the DNC National Convention until the late spring or summer state convention.

So, essentially, Iowa can’t be punished for responding to Florida and the South Carolina GOP’s moves, but we should ask for strong punishments and statements from the DNC reaffirming Iowa’s position as first in the nation, at least for this cycle.

We’ve had a tried and true method that has worked and framed the start of the presidential campaign season for thirty years.  We must act to protect this tradition–and Iowa Democrats should expect the IDP and its leadership to fight hard for our status.

And as a quick note, if any of my dates or information are factually wrong, please let me know in the comments as soon as possible.

UPDATE (6:44 PM Central Time): So here’s the deal.  A December caucus date is seeming a bit less likely.  At least that’s according to the calculations that Chris Bowers over at Open Left has provided to readers.  His calendar shapes out like this:

• Friday, January 4th: Iowa caucuses
• Saturday, January 12th: New Hampshire primary
Saturday, January 19th: Nevada Democratic caucus, South Carolina Republican primary
• Tuesday, January 29th: Florida primary, South Carolina Democratic primary
• Tuesday, February 5th: Super Tuesday

His reasoning, again, is here and worth a read.

And one more thing.  Gov. Culver talked with Kay Henderson and others today emphasizing his support for Iowa as first-in-the-nation state.  And he says that Iowa will be first, no matter what.

– – – – – – – – – –

Oh holy hell.  I really wish I could confirm with any ease the exact date of the Iowa Caucuses but it seems likely not to count on January 14th, 2008, anymore.

First, I’ll let you read what my friend John Deeth reported: That the South Carolina GOP Chair will announce in New Hampshire that he’s moving his primary date earlier than their scheduled February 2nd, 2008, primary.

Now, according to Marc Ambinder and others, it looks like the South Carolina GOP will announce in NH that they’re moving their primary to January 19th, a full three days before the NH primary.  By announcing the move in NH, it seems likely that the NH Secretary of State will move his state’s primary up to Monday, January 7th, or Tuesday, January 9th.  That would almost guarantee an Iowa Caucus date in December of 2007, unless both the IDP and the RPI decide to hold the Iowa Caucuses on Friday, January 4th.  That doesn’t seem likely as its right after the new year.

Other complications still exist.  On August 25th, the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee will meet to decide whether or not to sanction Florida Democrats because their state’s primary is now on January 29th (thanks to a Republican Florida legislature and governor).  Florida Democrats are seeking an exemption, but it is likely that Iowa Democrats will fight hard for sanctions to Florida’s delegation to the Democratic National Convention next summer in Denver.  The outcome of the Rules and Bylaws meeting is still quite up in the air.

Also, South Carolina Democrats are still planning their primary for January 29th, which means they’ll still actually be on schedule.

Michigan is still considering moving its primary to January 29th as well, but Gov. Jennifer Granholm is facing pressure not to sign a bill that would move the primary earlier (but also faces pressure from in-state Democrats like Sen. Carl Levin to move the date earlier–as a sidenote, Levin is crybaby who is just pissed that Nevada and South Carolina were the states that the DNC picked to insert into the IA-NH domination).

Summary: If you’re planning to caucus, keep the months of December and January open.

And if you want to keep track of the best news on the primary/caucus schedule, try Ballot Access News.

The folks over at IowaPolitics.com have launched another contest to reach out to online readers and bloggers with their Ames Straw Poll Contest.

Mike Schramm, the news editor at IowaPolitics.com, says “Whoever guesses closest to the actual finishing order wins a free year of our subscription service.”  To be honest, I’m not a subscriber to their service but I know some folks who are subscribers and appreciate the work they do.

Anyway, entries need to be submitted by Friday afternoon (because Saturday is the actual straw poll).  So go fill out the form and take a chance!

And yes, I realize that we’re all mostly Democrats and progressives here but this is at least a good way to have some fun and test your Republican political prowess.

Welcome once again to the 50-State Blog Roundup, brought to you this week from LoadedOrygun‘s TJ, one of the state blog rookies. Treat him kindly…

See you next week!

On Iowa’s airwaves you’ll start seeing a new TV ad titled “Take It Back” touting reform efforts his campaign has taken to get rid of the influence of Washington lobbyists and PACs by not accepting donations from them to his campaign as well as highlight his work in the Senate on ethics reform efforts.  For some reason, I can’t find a version of the ad that I can embed here on Bleeding Heartland, but you can view the ad by clicking here.

It is a good ad that follows on the same theme/guidelines established in his first two biographical ads that went up on the air in Iowa, as in they help to keep telling the “Barack Obama story.”

What interests me about this ad is the highlighting of ethics and campaign finance issues as the primary focus in what is Obama’s first true issue ad in Iowa.  Will the issues really resonate with Iowans at this point?  I’m not sure.

Ethics and government reform were major Democratic campaign platforms in 2006 and were even considered to be one of the deciding issues in 2006 (right behind the catch-all issue of Iraq).  But now with House passing really comprehensive lobbying reform legislation (that will likely be passed in the Senate as is and sent to the President’s desk) it seems like Democrats are already taking big efforts to fully push through reform.

Maybe I’m just naive or way to focused on other issues like Iraq but to me the clean campaign Obama is running just makes logical sense and should be what all the campaigns are doing, and then other issues should become the real focus.

Either way, it is just a TV ad, and a good one.

Which bookstore will you be visiting at midnight tonight? Would you be surprised to learn that only one presidential candidate has played the Harry Potter card so far?

Either way, here are some updates from around the 50-State Blog Network, brought to you this week from Minnesota Campaign Report‘s Joe Bodell.