Over at the Washington Monthly’s Political Animal blog, Hilzoy had a great comment on news that John McCain may soon propose “economic measures aimed directly at the middle class” such as “tax cuts — perhaps temporary — for capital gains and dividends”:

Because what everyone is really worried about right now is how they’ll manage to pay the taxes on their massive capital gains.

The biggest surprise for me this year is how poor a campaign McCain has run since locking up the Republican nomination.

This is an open thread on the dumbest policy idea or campaign tactic McCain has come up with in recent months.

Although McCain had no great options for VP, in my opinion, I still think picking Sarah Palin was one of his biggest mistakes.

UPDATE: The New York Times reports,

Despite signals that Senator John McCain would have new prescriptions for the economic crisis after a weekend of meetings, his campaign said Sunday that Mr. McCain, the Republican presidential nominee, would not have any more proposals this week unless developments call for some.

There’s a winning message!

Everyone who doesn’t think that current developments call for some economic policy proposals, please raise your hands.

I used to be a psychologist, and one of the things that I would often tell my clients is that the relationship between feelings and actions isn't one way. People who are depressed tend to isolate themselves even to the point of staying in bed all day. However, if they force themselves to get out of the house, even though they don't “feel like it,” they often start to feel a little less depressed. Sometimes the feelings come first, “I felt depressed, so I stayed in bed.” Other times the feelings come second, “I went for a walk, and I now I better.”

I started to work for the Obama campaign even though I didn't like him much. I did this for several reasons. First, because Hillary asked me to. One thing she said in her concession speech was, “Are you doing this just for me?” This isn't about one candidate, it is about improving our country. I want to get as many democrats in office as possible.  Second, I wanted to work with the Obama campaign to try coordinate our efforts to get Becky Greenwald elected. I traded my services for Obama for their services for Becky.  Finally, I didn't want to be a cry baby like I have seen a few William Meyers supporters, and some Hillary supporters be. I find it absolutely silly, that anyone would support a candidate like McCain or Latham just because the democrat that they wanted didn't win. 

None of these reasons had anything to do with me “liking” Barack. I didn't. But you know what? When I started campaigning for him, I started having to come up with some reason besides “he's a democrat” to support him. And I started to find some reasons. One of the big ones that I tell people is that amazing speaking ability that I once disdained as “just words” could be really useful in a diplomatic situation. And think how much cheaper that is than another war. Also, that “elitist thing” that people say about him–maybe he comes across that way because he is so intelligent. And right now what our country needs is an intelligent president. I don't want someone “just like me” in office. I want someone a whole lot smarter than me in office.

After awhile, just like I used to tell my clients, my feelings followed my actions. And now–I have to admit–I like Barack. I like him a lot. He might not have been my first choice, but he is my choice now. I'm not “holding my nose” and voting for him. I'm voting for him because I like him. That isn't to say I regret the choice I made in the primary. I don't. I like and admire Hillary Clinton now more than ever. However, just like she said in her concession speech:

“So I want to say to my supporters, when you hear people saying – or think to yourself – 'if only' or 'what if,' I say, 'please don't go there.' Every moment wasted looking back keeps us from moving forward. Life is too short, time is too precious, and the stakes are too high to dwell on what might have been. We have to work together for what still can be. And that is why I will work my heart out to make sure that Senator Obama is our next President and I hope and pray that all of you will join me in that effort.”

On Thursday at Open Left, Chris Bowers had this advice for the opposition in his very upbeat presidential forecast:

When it comes to offering concern troll advice to McCain and Republicans, I would recommend shutting down all paid media, and firing all campaign staff. McCain should take his remaining money, and distribute it to the RNC, NRCC and NRSC. Target a few close House and Senate seats to try and limit the damage, but otherwise save money for 2010 and 2012. When you are beaten, it is probably better to  withdraw, save what troops and resources you can, but live to fight another day.

Crooked Timber reported yesterday on the latest from the rumor mill:

So I hear (via a prominent member of the sane Republican faction) that the word on the right side of the street is that the Republican National Committee is about to pull the plug on its joint ads with the McCain campaign, and devote its resources instead to trying to save a couple of the senators who are at serious risk of losing their seats.

On one level, this strategy makes the most sense for the RNC. McCain is looking more and more unlikely to win 270 electoral votes, so helping him is probably not the best use of resources. I am told that the Republicans did this in September/October 1996 once it became clear that Bob Dole would lose to Bill Clinton.

Furthermore, Senate Republicans may well be leaning on the RNC to do more for their incumbents. There is real concern now that Minority Leader Mitch McConnell could lose in Kentucky. That would be a terrible blow to the GOP caucus in the Senate (click the link to read why), and McConnell is more popular with his colleagues than McCain.

Sarah Palin’s recent travel schedule also suggests a focus on Congressional races. Last week she was in California (not a battleground state in the presidential race, but a place with several contested House seats) and in Omaha (where Nebraska’s second district is up for grabs). This weekend she is headed to West Virginia, where Shelley Moore Capito could lose in the second Congressional district. Capito is not only the sole Republican in the West Virginia delegation to Congress, she is the most likely Republican to win Robert Byrd’s Senate seat after he leaves the scene.

On the other hand, it would be devastating to Republican morale for the media to start reporting that the RNC had given up on McCain. I suspect that would depress GOP turnout in a lot of states, perhaps putting more House seats in play even as the RNC blankets the airwaves in behalf of a few vulnerable senators.

Here in Iowa, Republican incumbent Tom Latham is running lots of tv and radio ads in the fourth district (D+0), while 10 worst list honoree Steve King is not up on tv or radio and is barely campaigning in the fifth district (R+8). We could pick up both of these seats if expectations of an Obama landslide depress Republican turnout.

However the RNC resolves the competing demands for its resources, Sam Wang, a neurologist and political analyst who writes for the Princeton Election Consortium, thinks activists in both parties should forget about the presidential race. He argues that a “hard look at reality” suggests that Obama is going to win big, and further donations to his campaign will not affect the outcome. According to Wang, it makes more sense for activists to focus their energy and donations on the close Senate races right now.

I mostly agree, except that I think activists in battleground states (which Iowa is not) have to follow through to make sure Obama’s supporters turn out for him.

In all the states, we need to keep directing money and volunteer time to the state legislative races, which are important for many reasons.

What do you think?

UPDATE: A commenter at the Princeton Election Consortium site makes a good point:

I agree that supporting close Senate races should be primary, but continuing to contribute to the Presidential campaign isn’t useless. The margin of electoral-college victory, and even more of the popular vote, is important in defining the national sense of mandate for the victor. Politicians take notice too-as when Democrats voted for Reagan’s tax cuts (unfortunately) because of his victory margin. With a major economic rescue and reform needed, a sense of mandate is essential.

Share your thoughts on the campaign news of the day in Iowa.

Will John McCain hit Barack Obama hard today, or will he try to tone down the crowd’s hostility toward Obama, at the risk of getting booed like he did yesterday?

UPDATE: John Deeth’s liveblog is here.

Meanwhile, enjoy this YouTube:

Remember that the final presidential debate will be on Wednesday, October 15.

Saturday, October 11:

John McCain is coming to Davenport for a late morning rally with lots of Iowa Republicans. If you go there, please post a diary to tell us about the event and the mood in the crowd.

Former Governor Tom Vilsack will hold a press conference to discuss McCain’s failed economic policies at 2:00pm in the UFCW Hall, 1401 West 3rd Street in Davenport.

The Quad Cities Earth Charter Summit is happening from 8 am to 4 pm at the River Center in downtown Davenport. This year’s event will give you many opportunities to explore facts and opportunities for better living on planet Earth. You will leave with hope for the future and energy to make a difference. In addition to presentations and displays by local groups, there will be several speakers including, Colin Beavan, “No Impact Man” – who has been featured in media on programs as diverse as NPR news and “Good Morning America.” Colin’s topic will be “Does Our Happiness Have to Cost the Planet?” The keynote speaker in the morning will be well-known University of Iowa professor Dr. Jerry Schnoor to discuss the Global Climate Crisis. Cost for the day is just $20 per person and includes an earth friendly lunch. For more details and to download a registration brochure go to www.qcearthcharter.org  or contact lbellomy@chmiowa.org.

Rob Hubler will be on the Onawa Main Street, beginning at 10:45 am. He will attend a preforum cookout in Onawa beginning at 12:30 pm. Then he will attend the Onawa Chamber of Commerce Candidate Forum at 2 p.m. in the Onawa Public Library.

Hubler will also be at the Sac County Democrats Fall Picnic at 5:30 pm.

Becky Greenwald is holding a Coffee and Canvass with Sharon Steckman (candidate in Iowa House district 13) at 1 pm in the Borealis Coffee Shop,

316 N Federal Ave, Mason City.

Greenwald will attend the Humboldt County Soup Supper beginning at 5 pm in the VFW Hall, 412 Main St. in Dakota City.

At 7:30 pm, Greenwald will attend a fundraiser with Senator Rich Olive in the Randall Gym, Intersection of 3rd St. and School St. in Randall.

Sunday, October 12:

Becky Greenwald will be at the Covered Bridge Parade from 1pm – 3pm in Winterset, 7th Ave. and Husky Drive.

Greenwald will attend the Hardin County Democratic Fundraiser from 5pm – 7pm at the American Legion Building, 709 S. Oak Street in Iowa Falls.

Rob Hubler will be in Coon Rapids at 4 pm. Please call 712 352-2077 for details.

Join Whiterock Conservancy’s land stewardship crew in collecting prairie and savanna seeds for use in restoration projects. Learn to identify grassland plant species, learn their habitats, and assist in collecting the seeds for the future. Join the collection crew just east of Coon Rapids. Help collect today so that we may plant tomorrow. Contact WRC’s ecologist, Elizabeth Hill to sign up for prairie seed collection forays: elizabeth@whiterockconservancy.org.

The Iowa City Environmental Film Festival is opening:

“America’s Lost Landscape; The Tallgrass Prairie” is the first of seven films being screened as part of the new Iowa City Environmental Film Festival. The film will be shown Sunday, October 12 at 2:00 PM at the Iowa City Public Library, Room A.

Connie Mutel, local resident and author of The Emerald Horizon, The History of Nature in Iowa , will lead a discussion following the film. The film is hosted by Citizens for Our Land Our Water Our Future. ( www.landwaterfuture.org)

This film tells the rich and complex story of one of the most astonishing alterations of nature in human history.  “Examines the record of human struggle, triumph and defeat that prairie history exemplifies.   IDA’s Pare Lorentz award citation.

The Iowa City Environmental Film Festival was developed in collaboration with non-profit environmental groups throughout the region. Films will be screened once a month at the Iowa City Public Library, Room A. Screenings are free and open to the public and include discussions with local advocates and experts.

For more information on this and upcoming films go to:

www.EnvironmentalFilmsIC.com

or

info@environmentalfilmsic.com

I heard Connie Mutel speak about her new book at the annual meeting of 1000 Friends of Iowa in August. I highly recommend her presentation.

Monday, October 13:

Rob Hubler will speak to the Sioux City Downtown Rotary Club, beginning at 11:45 am.

Governor Chet Culver will attend a reception to raise money for Becky Greenwald’s campaign at the home of Marcia and Rick Wanamaker, 710 Southfork Drive in Waukee, at 5:30 pm. For more details or to RSVP, contact Eric Dillon at (515) 987-2800 or dillon@beckygreenwald.com.

Singer-songwriter Carole King will be campaigning for Barack Obama. I got my picture taken with her when she came to Des Moines for John Kerry shortly before the 2004 caucuses. However, I forgot to bring my copy of “Tapestry” for her to autograph! Details for her upcoming appearances:

Carole King is a Grammy Award winning singer-songwriter.  She has been inducted into the Songwriters Hall of Fame and the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.  King has traveled across the country, including Ohio, Pennsylvania and New Hampshire, on behalf of the Obama campaign.

MONDAY, OCTOBER 13TH, 2008

10:00 AM

Carole King to Hold a “Vote Now for Change” Coffee

Campaign for Change Office

104 N 1st St.

Winterset, Iowa

1:00 PM

Carole King to Hold a “Vote Now for Change” Lunch

Firehouse in Red Oak

310 Washington Ave.

Red Oak, Iowa

5:30 PM

Carole King to Kick-Off a “Vote Now for Change” Phone Bank

Prairie Blue

114 N. Wilson St.

Jefferson, Iowa

7:45 PM

Carole King to Thank Volunteers

Stomping Grounds

303 Welch Ave

Ames, Iowa

Tuesday, October 14:

Carole King will hold several more events:

10:00 AM

Carole King to Hold a “Vote Now for Change” Rally

Gentle Student Center

Ellsworth Community College

1100 College Ave.

Iowa Falls, Iowa

1:00 PM

Carole King to Hold a “Vote Now for Change” Lunch

Borealis Coffee Shop

316 N. Federal Ave

Mason City, Iowa

3:15 PM

Carol King to Hold a “Vote Now for Change” Canvass Kickoff Event

Campaign for Change Office

210 E. State St.

Algona, IA

5:00 PM

Carole King to Kick-Off a “Vote Now for Change” Phone Bank

Campaign for Change Office

33 N 12th St.

Fort Dodge, Iowa

8:00 PM

Carole King to Thank Volunteers

Ritual Café

1301 Locust St. #D

Des Moines, Iowa

From the Department of Natural Resources:

DES MOINES – A series of informational meetings to highlight proposed rule changes regarding public lands will be held in October in Des Moines, Dubuque and Spirit Lake. The first is scheduled for Tuesday, Oct. 14th in Des Moines.

The primary intent of changing the rules is to clarify the application procedure, formalize the permit denial process and provide better management of public lands and waters. The proposed rules will also provide for potential penalties associated with the violation of permit conditions or failure to get a permit prior to construction on public lands. The proposed rules also provide for greater enforcement ability by the DNR in cases where private entities have encroached on public land.

Public lands are owned by the citizens of Iowa and include many lakes, 14 rivers, wildlife management areas, state forests and state parks. The proposed rules do not pertain to docks which are covered under a separate chapter of Iowa law and have recently been revised.

“We have been working hard within the department to create rules that are both fair, but also provide us with the safeguards we need to adequately protect the public land owned by Iowa’s citizens,” said Diane Ford-Shivvers, assistant administrator of the DNR’s Conservation and Recreation Division. Ford-Shivvers said the DNR wants the three public meetings to be active discussions on the proposed rules which are scheduled to go into effect next March.

[…]

The three meetings are as follows:

   * Tuesday, Oct. 14th; 6-8 pm at the Des Moines Botanical Center, Walsh Room, 909 Robert D. Ray Drive, Des Moines

   * Thursday, Oct. 23rd; 6-8 pm at EB Lyons Interpretive Center, Mines of Spain State Park, 8991 Bellevue Heights, Dubuque.

   * Monday, Oct. 27th; 6-8 pm at the Dickinson County Community Building, 1602 15th St., in Spirit Lake.

From the Sustainable Funding Coalition:

The Sustainable Funding Coalition, a diverse group of Iowa organizations (including INHF) that works for sustainable conservation funding, is sponsoring a series of candidate forums on the proposed Natural Resources and Outdoor Recreation Trust Fund.

So you can make your voice heard on this important issue, this e-mail provides background information on the forums, a list of forum dates & locations, and pre-registration instructions.

About the Fund: The proposed Natural Resources and Outdoor Recreation Trust Fund would provide a permanent funding source to support efforts to improve and preserve Iowa’s water quality, soils, wildlife habitat, and outdoor recreation opportunities.

To create the fund, proposed legislation mandates that 3/8ths of a cent from state sales tax revenue will be appropriated for the Trust Fund the next time the Iowa legislature approves a sales tax increase. The Sustainable Funding Coalition hopes to pass Trust Fund legislation during Iowa’s 2009 legislative session.  NOTE: This bill does not raise taxes, nor does it give voters the ability to raise the sales tax-only the legislature can do that.

Ten candidate forums scattered throughout the state provide a chance for citizens and legislators/candidates to discuss this legislation together. Please consider attending the forum nearest you to learn more about this proposal, show your legislators/candidates that Iowans care about conservation funding, and promote passing the needed legislation for this fund during Iowa’s 2009 legislative session.

How to pre-register & attend: Find the forum nearest you in the list below and then pre-register at http://conservation-candidate-… NOTE: Pre-registration is critical because individual events may be canceled if pre-registration numbers are low.

October 14 at 7 pm in the Pin Oak Nature Center on HWY 14, south of Chariton.

Wednesday, October 15:

The final presidential debate will be on tv starting at 8 pm.

From the Fairness Fund PAC:

Do you want to elect leaders that promise change, equality, and genuine hope?  This November we have a chance to send a Fair-minded Majority back to the State House to continue to fight for justice and fairness.  Anti-gay groups and candidates are mobilizing for victory this fall – we must be ready to help our friends and allies.  I hope you can join us to show your support for one of our friends and allies!

Please join us on Wednesday, October 15th, for a meet and greet with State Representative Candidate Gretchen Lawyer at the Mars Cafe (2318 University Avenue, Des Moines, Iowa), from 5:30-7:30pm.  Gretchen will be there to answer questions about her vision for Iowa and what she plans to do when elected.  Coffee will be served.  There is a suggested donation of $30.

Gretchen Lawyer is running for State Representative in Iowa District 36. Gretchen Lawyer, a stay-at home-mother of two and a former teacher, is running for office because she believes we need the values of education, community, and hard work represented in the State Legislature, and that by working together we can put those values into action.

Please RSVP to Brad Clark at 515-783-5950.

Thursday, October 16:

Dead Zone in the Gulf of Mexico: Implications and Strategies for Iowa

This day-long conference begins at 8 a.m. at the Gateway Center in Ames, and will look at new and emerging research findings and pressing needs related to hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico. Among the speakers will be Darrell Brown, chief of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Coastal Management Branch who coordinates the EPA’s efforts to reduce the size of the hypoxic zone in the northern Gulf of Mexico. Officials from various state agencies, NGOs and Iowa State researchers will present and participate in panel discussions. Registration begins September 8. Contacts: Cathy Kling, conference coordinator/research, ckling@iastate.edu, (515) 294-5767; or Sandy Clarke, communications/meeting planning, sclarke@iastate.edu, (515) 294-6257. See conference web site: http://www.card.iastate.edu/hy…  This conference is a project of the Leopold Center Policy Initiative with support from the Center for Agricultural and Rural Development at Iowa State University.

Friday, October 17:

Iowa Environmental Council Annual Conference and Meeting–Waters that Unite Us is this year’s annual conference theme. Please mark your calendars and plan to join us for a day of learning and networking. The conference will be held at the Botanical Center in Des Moines, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., with a members meeting following shortly after close of the conference. At the conference we will explore where and how humans are having positive and negative impacts on Iowa waters and some of the ways individuals and communities can participate in solutions. Registration will begin in August. Speakers include Cornelia F. Mutel author of “The Emerald Horizon – The History of Nature in Iowa,” and Cornelia Butler Flora, Director of North Central Regional Center for Rural Development. Visit www.iaenvironment.org for more information in late July.

WILD, WILD Aquatic, & Learning Tree Facilitator Training, October 17-18, Guthrie Center. The Iowa DNR is offering a Projects WILD, WILD Aquatic, and Learning Tree facilitator training workshop on Friday, October 17th and Saturday, October 18th at the Springbrook Conservation Education Center near Guthrie Center. Anyone who trains teachers, naturalists, youth leaders, or others involved in teaching about the environment in Iowa is invited to attend. Training is FREE (a $50 refundable deposit is required to reserve your space). Stipends for attending and mileage reimbursement are available. Lodging and meals will be provided.  For more information, contact the Aquatic Education Program: 641/747-2200; AquaticEd_Info@dnr.iowa.gov

Survey USA released a new Iowa poll today showing Barack Obama leading John McCain by 54 percent to 41 percent. Obama leads by 9 points among men and by 17 points among women. He also leads 2-1 among the respondents who said they have already voted.

Looking at the Iowa page at pollster.com, you can see that Obama has been at or above 50 percent in ten out of the last 11 Iowa polls. He leads by more than ten points according to the pollster.com average.

Sounds like a great time for McCain to waste half a day in Davenport!

Everyone doing volunteer work needs to remind voters to fill out the whole ballot, not just the oval next to Obama’s name.

Iowa Independent is reporting that Republican candidate Jarad Klein is trying to hijack Barack Obama’s message of change to smear his opponent, longtime family farmer Larry Marek. While it’s nothing new for desperate Republicans to pretend to stand for change, this is a particularly unique case. Klein is a career Republican operative who has worked for George Bush and the Republican Party of Iowa and only recently moved into HD89 solely to run office. With a resume like that, it shouldn’t come as a surprise that Klein is a right-wing extremist.

While Klein may claim he’s representing change, a carpetbagging Bush clone isn’t change. It’s just more of the same.  

The second radio debate between Becky Greenwald and  Tom Latham just ended. Kudos to KGLO-AM in Mason City for running a much better debate than WHO 1040 in Des Moines did on Monday. The questions by both journalists in the studio and callers were clear, substantive and balanced. I listened to the livestream, but I hope the station will make the audio available on their website (http://www.kgloam.com).

My overall impression was that Greenwald did just what she needed to do in the two radio debates. As I see it, her most important tasks were:

1. Demonstrate that she understands the issues and is able to speak comfortably on a range of topics.

2. Hold Latham accountable for his lockstep Republican voting record and failure to get key problems solved during his 14 years in Congress.

3. Remind voters that the country is on the wrong track, and she will be there to support Barack Obama’s efforts to put it on the right track.

Greenwald succeeded on all of those fronts.

As for Latham, I see his most important objectives for the debates this way:

1. Avoid acting like a jerk or making a big gaffe.

2. Distance himself from the Republican Party and George Bush’s failed policies.

3. Remind voters of his accomplishments as a member of Congress.

Only the first point can be considered a complete success for Latham, in my opinion. He was respectful toward his opponent and did not make any howlers. His answers did plenty to accomplish the second and third tasks, but Greenwald was able to rebut many of his claims during her own responses.

All challengers have to prove that they are “ready for prime time,” and there is no question that Greenwald did so. I share Chase Martyn’s perspective on the first debate; Latham and Greenwald debated as equals.

Greenwald answered the questions fluidly and precisely. In particular, she was very strong on health care, Social Security, Iraq, energy, taxes, and deregulation. She called Latham on his past support for Republican efforts to privatize Social Security. He repeatedly denied supporting “privatization,” but Greenwald pointed out that there is creating personal accounts (which could get decimated in bear market) is tantamount to privatizing a system that currently provides guaranteed benefits. After the jump, you can read a statement the Greenwald campaign issued on Social Security shortly after the debate.

Greenwald did not stumble or become flustered when faced with a hostile question. (This was also apparent during the first debate.) When callers brought up immigration, she talked about the need to enforce the laws for employers and asked why Latham hadn’t done anything to solve this problem before it got to the point of raids in Marshalltown and Postville. In both debates she also mentioned that many people are surprised to learn Postville is in the fourth district, because Congressman Bruce Braley has been so much more active in seeking enforcement of safety, labor and immigration laws with respect to Agriprocessors. Despite Latham’s claim that Greenwald supports “amnesty” for illegal immigrants, she made clear that she is talking about a path to some kind of legal status for employment (not necessarily citizenship), which could involve fines or in some cases returning to the home country to wait in line.

Greenwald’s closing statement hit on her campaign’s most important themes: the country has been going in the wrong direction for eight years, she firmly believes Obama will be elected president, and she wants to be there to help him change our direction.

As in Monday’s debate, Latham used every opportunity to bring up the bailout bill he voted against twice. In fact, I feel he should send House Speaker Nancy Pelosi a thank-you note, because he was clinging to his votes against the bailout like a life raft. Again and again, Latham cited the bailout as proof that he doesn’t always vote with Bush and stands with the little guy against Wall Street corruption.

He also used the bailout answers to claim that he supports better regulation of Wall Street. He blamed Democrats Barney Frank and Chris Dodd for Congress’s failure to better regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That is only a small part of the overall picture, though. For the last 15 years, Republicans in Washington have been pushing for less regulation of corporations and more corporate subsidies, and Latham has been right there with them.

Here’s Latham’s voting record on corporate subsidies.

Here’s Latham’s voting record that relates to government checks on corporate power.

Here’s Latham’s voting record on corporate tax breaks in general (including sub-categories on tax breaks for the oil and gas industry and for the wealthiest individuals).

Latham must be very grateful to be able to talk about the bailout instead of his long record of standing with corporations rather than middle-class taxpayers. Greenwald mentioned Latham’s longstanding support for deregulation, but those matters have received less media attention than this week’s stock market declines, which Latham pointed to as evidence that the bailout failed.

Greenwald brought up provisions in the revised bailout bill that benefit Iowans (those were the additions that brought Senator Tom Harkin and Congressman Bruce Braley on board). Latham avoided talking about the details of those “sweeteners” but spoke generally about opposing the Washington-style mentality that if you take a bad bill and add $150 billion in spending to it, it becomes a good bill. That’s probably the best argument he can make for why he voted against a bill containing the wind energy tax credit and tax breaks for flood-damaged businesses.

From where I’m sitting, the bailout was the best card Latham had to play, and he made full use of it. If not for that issue, today’s debate would have been a blowout for Greenwald.

Regarding health care, Latham stated clearly today that he would not support John McCain’s proposal as currently drafted, because it doesn’t address issues such as Medicare reimbursements. Earlier in the week, Greenwald’s campaign, the Iowa Democratic Party, and Americans United for Change had been hammering him on his apparent support for McCain’s plan during Monday’s debate.

In today’s debate, Latham did not mention the problem of insurance companies excluding coverage for pre-existing conditions, which Greenwald mentioned prominently in her answer on health care.

Latham expressed pride in many of the bills he has co-sponsored relating to health care, but Greenwald brought up the big picture, which is that the problems in our health care sector have gotten worse, not better, during Latham’s 14 years in Congress. For 12 of those years, he was in the majority party. Why hasn’t he accomplished more?

As for partisanship, Latham mentioned several times today that the Democratic mayor of Boone is supporting him. Here he tapped into the goodwill that often comes to members who serve on the House Appropriations Committee. I don’t think I heard him embrace any of Obama’s proposals, though.

Latham didn’t return to an argument he made several times in Monday’s debate, which is that Iowa’s Democratic members of Congress have more partisan voting records than he does.

He doesn’t seem to understand that the problem with his lockstep Republican voting record is not that it’s “partisan.” The problem is, the Republican policies he has supported down the line (from the war in Iraq to almost any domestic issue you name) have failed. They have put our country on the wrong track. We need to move in a different direction, and Latham isn’t going to support the change we need.

It’s always hard for me to put myself in the mindset of an undecided voter as I listen to a debate. My impression was that Greenwald helped herself a lot, especially since the voters of the fourth district are very likely to support Obama by a significant margin over McCain.

I don’t think Latham did much today to hurt himself, but I wonder whether his bailout votes will be enough to convince fourth district residents that he has been more than a loyal supporter of the most unpopular president in history.

UPDATE: Greenwald’s statement on Social Security is after the jump.

Not.

Hey, everyone! Our tax dollars paid for National Security Agency employees to listen to phone sex and other private conversations between U.S. military personnel in the Middle East and their families.

Plus, the NSA continued to eavesdrop on American citizens they knew to be working for the Red Cross and other aid organizations.

NSA employees also routinely listened to American journalists working in Baghdad’s Green Zone as they called their homes and offices in the U.S.

Key comment from one of the whistleblowers:

Kinne says the success stories underscored for her the waste of time spent listening to innocent Americans, instead of looking for the terrorist needle in the haystack.

“By casting the net so wide and continuing to collect on Americans and aid organizations, it’s almost like they’re making the haystack bigger and it’s harder to find that piece of information that might actually be useful to somebody,” she said. “You’re actually hurting our ability to effectively protect our national security.”

By the way, you know who never met a Bush administration wiretapping program he didn’t like? My own Congressman Leonard Boswell, who sits on the House Intelligence Committee. In case you forgot, he was one of 41 House Democrats who voted with most House Republicans to expand the executive branch’s eavesdropping power, as outlined by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Maybe these whistleblowers can come explain to Congress that massively expanding government surveillance doesn’t just undermine civil liberties, it also makes it “harder to find that piece of information that might actually be useful to somebody.”

If you vote in Iowa, you’ll find a constitutional amendment on the ballot:

THE QUESTION: Iowa voters will be asked to strike the words “idiot” and “insane person” from a section of the Iowa Constitution that refers to people who are banned from voting. The words would be replaced with the more socially acceptable term “mentally incompetent.”

THE ACTION: An amendment needs to be approved by simple majorities in the Iowa House and Senate in two consecutive general assemblies. It then needs to be approved by a simple majority of voters in the next general election.

THE HISTORY: Voters in Iowa may remember hearing about this amendment before. It was supposed to be on the ballot in 2006. But the secretary of state’s office, then headed by now-Gov. Chet Culver, and the then-chief clerk in the House failed to publish a notice of the proposed changes as required.

Representative Pam Jochum, who is one of the best we’ve got in the Iowa legislature, has been trying to get this done for years.

Don’t leave that part of the ballot blank–vote yes.

I forgot to post this yesterday.

The presiding judge in the trial of Charles Keating, Jr. (central figure in the 1980s savings and loan debacle) was Lance Ito, who later presided over O.J. Simpson’s murder trial. Unfortunately, Ito messed up the jury instructions, allowing Keating to get his conviction overturned on appeal.

I also learned this good trivia from Keating’s wikipedia entry:

In 1985, Keating hired Alan Greenspan as an economic consultant, in an unsuccessful effort to convince an oversight agency to exempt Lincoln Savings from certain regulations. Greenspan delivered a favorable report, writing that Lincoln Savings was “a financially strong institution that presents no foreseeable risk to depositors or the government.” (Greenspan produced similar favorable reports on numerous other banks that also failed soon after.)

Obviously, that was before Greenspan replaced Paul Volcker as head of the Federal Reserve.

Anyone watch the Obama campaign’s documentary on John McCain’s role in the Keating Five scandal? What did you think?  

I was surprised to read in the Des Moines Register that John McCain is coming back to Iowa for a rally in Davenport this Saturday. Event details:

Join John McCain and your Iowa Ticket

for a Road to Victory Rally

Saturday, October 11th

Doors Open at 8:30 am and Program Begins at 10:30 am

River Center, 136 E. 3rd Street

Davenport, IA 52801

The Register quoted McCain staffer Wendy Reimann as saying the candidate is committed to keeping Iowa red and has opened eight more offices here. Sure enough, McCain does have more “victory offices” in Iowa now than he did in August. The campaign site lists offices in Urbandale, Ames, Marshalltown, Waterloo, Marion, Coralville, Davenport, Indianola, Ottumwa, Newton, Mt. Pleasant, Dubuque, Clear Lake, Sioux Center, Sioux City and Council Bluffs.

If you live in one of these communities, I would like to hear a report on the level of activity by staffers or volunteers for McCain. Do you see people out knocking on doors for McCain? Do registered voters seem to be getting phone calls from McCain’s campaign? If you walk by the office, does it look like a lot is going on there? You can post a comment in this thread or e-mail me confidentially (desmoinesdem AT yahoo.com).

Sean Quinn of fivethirtyeight.com took a road trip to compare the Obama and McCain field operations in various states, and he wasn’t impressed by the work being done in the McCain offices:

Let’s be clear. We’ve observed no comparison between these ground campaigns. To begin with, there’s a 4-1 ratio of offices in most states. We walk into McCain offices to find them closed, empty, one person, two people, sometimes three people making calls. Many times one person is calling while the other small clutch of volunteers are chatting amongst themselves. In one state, McCain’s state field director sat in one of these offices and, sotto voce, complained to us that only one man was making calls while the others were talking to each other about how much they didn’t like Obama, which was true. But the field director made no effort to change this. This was the state field director.

Only for the first time the other day did we see a McCain organizer make a single phone call. So we’ve now seen that once. The McCain organizers seem to operate as maître Ds. Let me escort you to your phone, sir. Pick any one of this sea of empty chairs. I’ll be sitting over here if you need any assistance.

Given a choice between taking embarrassing photos of empty phone banks, we give McCain’s people the chance to pose for photos to show us the action for what they continually claim we “just missed.” No more. We stop into offices at all open hours of the day, but generally more in the afternoon and evening. “Call time,” for both campaigns, is all day, but the time when folks over 65 are generally targeted begins in late afternoon and goes til 8 or 9pm. Universally, McCain’s people stop earlier. Even when we show up at 6:15pm, we’re told we just missed the big phone bank, or to come back in 30 minutes. If we show up an hour later, we “just missed it” again. […]

You could take every McCain volunteer we’ve seen doing actual work in the entire trip, over six states, and it would add up to the same as Obama’s single Thornton, CO office. Or his single Durango, CO office. These ground campaigns bear no relationship to each other.

Getting back to the point of this post, nine of the last ten polls in Iowa show Obama at or above 50 percent in Iowa, with a significant lead. I am shocked that McCain would waste half a day campaigning here instead of in a state he must win (such as Missouri, North Carolina, Virginia, Ohio or Florida). It’s not as if Illinois, just across the river from Davenport, is a swing state either.

I put up a poll after the jump where you can predict the presidential election result in Iowa.

In August I posted some questions about the accuracy of opinion polls on the presidential race. I wondered whether any of the following factors might introduce distortions in the polling:

-the growing number of voters who use only cell phones;

-the practice of polling on weekends (when certain demographic groups are less likely to be at home);

-the varying estimates of the partisan and demographic breakdown of the electorate;

-the enormous disparity in the two campaigns’ ground games (which is even more obvious now than it was in the summer).

Most of the factors I mentioned would lead polls to understate support for Barack Obama. However, some political analysts have also questioned whether polls might be overstating Obama’s support because of the “Bradley effect” (or “Bradley-Wilder effect”), whereby white people tell pollsters they plan to vote for a black candidate but act differently in the voting booth. Here at Bleeding Heartland, American007 has expressed concern about this possibility.

We won’t know how accurate the polls were until November 5, and even then we won’t be able to prove how much of the difference was related to last-minute external events and how much was related to pollsters’ errors in weighting their samples, or respondents lying about their intentions.

However, here are some pieces worth your time if you enjoy this kind of speculation.

The “mystery pollster” Mark Blumenthal doubts there will be a “perfect storm” leading to wildly inaccurate polling, because

the potential polling foibles may work in opposite directions and “cancel each other out.” A return of the Bradley-Wilder effect would work to McCain’s benefit, while an underrepresentation of younger, African American or “cell-phone-only” voters will likely benefit Obama.

Embedded in that piece is a link to a research paper (pdf file) by Daniel J. Hopkins, a post-doctoral fellow at Harvard who analyzed data from 133 gubernatorial and Senate elections from 1989 to 2006. He found a Bradley effect in the early 1990s but no evidence that it still existed in more recent elections. If you don’t want to download the whole file, Sam Wang of the Princeton Election Consortium summarized Hopkins’ findings in this post on “The disappearing Bradley effect.”

Sam Wang looked at the evidence about cell phone users here and believes this factor is probably only understating Obama’s support by about 1 percent.

But Nate Silver of fivethirtyeight.com compared the McCain-Obama numbers in many polls and found that Obama does 2 to 3 percent better in surveys by pollsters that call cell phone numbers in addition to landlines.

Silver is not concerned about the Bradley effect after analyzing the primary results. Obama did better than his pre-election polling numbers in more states than he underperformed.

I wonder whether the kind of person who would lie to a pollster about being willing to vote for a black candidate is more likely to vote in a general election than in a Democratic primary. That said, I do find Hopkins’ analysis persuasive, so I have decided not to worry about the Bradley effect either.

I’m not a pollster or a statistician, but my hunch is that the greatest potential for pollster error is in the assumptions made about relative turnout by certain demographic groups. Should we assume the proportion of Democrats, blacks and young voters will be about the same as 2004, or should we assume higher turnout in those groups? Being wrong in one direction or another could significantly skew the results, especially in states with large black populations.

The Research 2000 tracking poll for Daily Kos is assuming a higher proportion of Democrats in the electorate than Gallup and Rasmussen, for instance. I assume Democrats will increase their share of the electorate because of the trends in voter registration over the past year as well as the enthusiasm gap. However, Jerome Armstrong is among the skeptics who think the partisan turnout will look very much like 2004.

I would question any poll that assumes African-American voters will make up the same proportion of the electorate this year as they did in 2004, especially in states where Obama has a massive voter turnout operation and John Kerry did not compete (such as North Carolina, Virginia and Missouri). Even in Georgia, where Obama has significantly reduced staff since the summer, we can expect to see much higher black turnout if voter registration trends and early voting are any indication.

I am less confident about a surge in young voter turnout, but if that did happen, pre-election polls weighted according to the 2004 figures would understate Obama’s support.

If Latino turnout is higher than in 2004, Obama will benefit because McCain does quite poorly among Latinos, far worse than George Bush did in 2004.

What do you think? Are you counting on polls to be mostly accurate this year, or significantly off the mark in one direction?

This summer Senator Tom Harkin held a “Building Blue” contest for Democrats running for the Iowa legislature. Representative Eric Palmer and Senator Tom Rielly received the most votes on Harkin’s website, and their campaigns each received $5,000 from Harkin’s campaign fund. Another four House and four Senate candidates each received $2,000.

Today I received an e-mail from Harkin announcing a new Building Blue contest for county Democratic parties:

Dear [desmoinesdem],

There are just a few short weeks before Iowans go to the polls and there’s still plenty of work to be done.

You may remember that several months ago, we conducted a Building Blue contest that raised thousands of dollars for Democratic candidates across the state of Iowa.  Now, we need to continue to build upon our grassroots infrastructure for this November’s election.

To help do so, we have launched a second Building Blue contest on tomharkin.com.  This time, my campaign will provide $9,000 to support the get out the vote efforts of County Democratic Parties throughout the state.

We’re calling it Building Blue II: Counting the Counties.

Please visit www.tomharkin.com and nominate your county to receive up to $3,000 for November’s campaign.

The nomination round is open to all of Iowa’s 99 counties.  It begins today and runs until October 15th, so please forward this email and tell your friends and family to vote for your county today.

The ten counties receiving the most votes will each receive $500 and move on to the second round.

In the second round, which will run from October 15th until October 22th, the counties with the second and third most votes will get another $500 and the winning county will be awarded a grand prize of $2,500 for their fall campaign.

Please support your county today by taking part in the Building Blue contest and helping us continue to build a solid foundation for November 4th.

Thank you for your support and good luck!

This is an open thread to discuss which counties most deserve a little extra funding to support Democratic turnout efforts.

Let’s think strategically.

Should we try to steer Harkin’s donations toward the most populous counties? Those counties have the largest potential number of voters to reach. Then again, maybe those counties already have substantial GOTV operations in the works. Certainly they all have field offices from Barack Obama’s campaign.

Should we nominate counties where neither Obama nor any Congressional candidate has a field office? Maybe those counties need more help.

Should we nominate counties in the fourth or fifth Congressional districts, where we’ve got a chance to unseat Republicans?

Should we nominate counties where the most competitive statehouse races will take place (such as Scott County and Mahaska County)?

In other Harkin-related news, I have heard but not yet independently confirmed that Harkin donated $250,000 from his campaign fund to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee at the end of September. (The next round of Federal Election Commission reports will come out on October 15.)

Good for him. More and more Senate races are becoming competitive, and the DSCC needs the resources to help our strong candidates in states like Kentucky, Georgia and Mississippi.

During Monday’s radio debate between Representative Tom Latham and Becky Greenwald (podcast available here), Latham did his best to run away from the Republican label and the failed policies of George Bush’s administration. In fact, he was eager to remind listeners of the only time in recent memory that he didn’t vote for something Bush wanted (the bailout).

Latham didn’t go out of his way to link himself with John McCain either, which makes sense, since McCain is going to lose Iowa. When one caller asked him about McCain’s health care plan, Latham hedged before acknowledging that he supports the concept of that plan.

Greenwald wants him to explain his position:

 October 8, 2008                                                                                          

Greenwald Calls on Latham Says to Explain His Support of John McCain’s Radical Healthcare Plan

Over 217,000 Iowans Would Lose Coverage Under McCain’s Radical Plan

Waukee, IA – This week, on the WHO 1040 AM radio debate, Tom Latham was asked if he would support John McCain’s radical health care plan. After skirting the question, Tom Latham said “…the general concept of it I would be supportive of.” In a conference call today, Becky Greenwald called on Latham to explain his support for a plan that would cost over 217,000 Iowans their healthcare.

“Tom, how can you support a radical healthcare proposal that would cost over 217,000 Iowans to lose their health insurance?” asked Becky Greenwald. “This is a classic Washington bait and switch. Tom Latham and John McCain would give you a tax credit with one hand, but raises your taxes with the other to pay for it. With Iowans being squeezed from all sides, we literally can’t afford two more years of Tom Latham.”

John McCain’s plan will tax health care benefits and lead 20 million workers, 217,346 in Iowa alone, to lose the coverage they get from their employers. He only offers a $5,000 tax credit to families to buy health insurance, but according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, the average family health insurance premium is over $12,000. McCain also said that he supports deregulating healthcare, just as he and Tom Latham did with the financial markets that have led to our economic crisis.

McCain’s Plan to Give American’s More Cost and Less Coverage

Over 215,000 Iowans Would Lose Their Coverage Under McCain’s Health Plan. In September 2008, the Economic Policy Institute, in their analysis of John McCain’s health care plan reported that up to 217,346 Iowans could lose their health coverage under McCain’s health care plan. [Economic Policy Institute: McCain Plan Accelerates Loss In Employer-Sponsored Health Insurance A State-By-State Analysis, 9/26/08]

McCain’s Health Plan Could Result In Tax Increase For Some Americans. McCain’s campaign “acknowledged. . .that the health plan he outlined. . .would have the effect of increasing tax payments for some workers, primarily those with high incomes and expensive health plans.” According to the New York Times, “the campaign cannot yet project how many taxpayers might see their taxes go up.” [New York Times, 5/1/2008]

McCain Wanted to Deregulate the Health Insurance Market.  In Contingencies, a publication by the American Academy of Actuaries, McCain said, “Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation.”  [Contigencies, Sept./Oct. issue via New York Times, 9/19/08]

The Cost For Employer Based Family Health Coverage Is $12,680. The Kaiser Family Foundation stated, “Premiums for employer-sponsored health insurance rose to $12,680 annually for family coverage this year.” [Kaiser Family Foundation release, 9/24/08]

McCain’s Plan May Increase Health Costs. “Critics of McCain’s plan say it would not make insurance cheaper or more available and might prevent people with pre-existing conditions from getting coverage.” Harvard Business School professor Regina Herzlinger “feels the plan does little to address the high cost of health care.” In addition, “McCain and his advisers say that giving health-care consumers more options will lead to substantial cost reductions, though they have yet to provide any figures.” [Reuters, 4/29/2008; Business Week, 4/29/2008; Bloomberg, 4/29/2008]

McCain Plan Would Cause 20 Million People to Lose Employer-Based Health Insurance.  Health Affairs reported in September 2008 that, “Eliminating the tax exclusion would greatly reduce the number of people who obtain health insurance through their employers.  This decline would be driven by three factors: the effective price of employer-sponsored coverage would increase, the nondiscrimination rules would no longer apply, and low-risk employees would have less incentive to remain in employer-sponsored groups…the elimination of the income tax preference for employer-sponsored insurance would cause twenty million Americans to lose such coverage. [Health Affairs, 9/16/08]

I challenge any family to shop for a private health insurance plan that costs $5,000 a year. That is a joke. Even young, healthy individuals often can’t get insurance for that price. I know this firsthand, because my family pays for our own health insurance.

The point about McCain wanting to tax health benefits is also important. I’m glad to hear Greenwald echoing the message that Barack Obama’s campaign is conveying through television ads, door-to-door contacts and direct-mail pieces.

If this issue comes up in Friday’s radio debate, I would encourage Greenwald to mention one more problem with McCain’s plan.

If you have a pre-existing condition, you may not be able to purchase health insurance for any price. Elizabeth Edwards pointed out six months ago that McCain’s plan does nothing to solve this problem.

Speaking of which, in a conference call last week, Elizabeth Edwards made the connection between our inadequate health care system and our economic problems:

she said that problems with payments of medical bills often lead to home foreclosures, a major factor in the current economic downturn. Elizabeth Edwards also said that residents without health insurance often are less productive because they miss work as a result of a lack of access to preventive care or early treatment for illnesses. She said, “Reform of our health care system is a very important part of the answers we’re going to need to solve our economic woes.”

Democratic candidates for office at all levels need to keep connecting those dots. Obama answered the health care question well in last night’s debate with McCain.

I will have more thoughts on the Latham/Greenwald debate once I’ve had a chance to listen to the 80-minute tape again.

UPDATE: The Obama campaign provided further event details for the RV tour, which you can find after the jump.

As I wrote over the summer, Barack Obama’s small-town outreach is crushing John McCain’s.

The latest example is an RV tour, starting today, which will promote early voting:

Des Moines, Iowa – On Wednesday, October 8th, 2008, the Obama Iowa Campaign for Change will launch the “Vote Now for Change” RV tour.  From October 8th through October 10th, the “Vote Now for Change” RV – which will be decorated with a “Vote Early for Change” banner and other signs — will travel to communities across Iowa carrying literature to make sure Iowans know how they can vote and to engage Iowans in the democratic process.  At each stop, the campaign will discuss the importance of voting now for change. The Obama campaign is committed to opening up the political process to people who may have never taken part before and engaging as many Iowans as possible in our movement for change.

Early voting in Iowa has begun and the Obama campaign has set up a voter information hotline, 877 – IA08VOTE, for Iowans to call to get information on how they can vote. Iowans can also visit iowa.barackobama.com for more information.

“Voting in Iowa has begun and Iowans across the state have the opportunity to cast their vote for Barack Obama and help turn the page on the failed policies of the past eight years,” said Obama Iowa State Director Jackie Norris.  “Our country desperately needs change, which is why it is so important for Iowans to vote early, get their votes in the bank and then volunteer on Election Day to help us turn Iowa blue.  Iowans helped launch Senator Obama’s candidacy and now Iowans have the opportunity to once again help carry Senator Obama to victory, so we can finally have a President who will look out for middle class families instead of big corporations.”

The details of the “Vote Now for Change” RV Tour are below.  Additional details will follow in the coming days.

I’ve put those details after the jump. You can see that the RV is stopping in lots of Iowa cities and towns, including several college towns.

As you encourage your friends to vote early, don’t forget to tell them to fill out the whole ballot and not just check the box next to Obama’s name. Iowans also have the option of voting straight ticket, which automatically records your vote for all the Democrats running for office.

If you need talking points to help convince people to vote early, click here.

When Congress debated the bailout package last week, plenty of respected economists argued that the bill would do little to fix the problems in the banking sector. However, others insisted we had to “do something” to avert a market meltdown.

Many people became reluctant supporters of the bailout because of the need to “do something.” Here’s how Tom Harkin explained his “yes” vote:

I reluctantly voted in favor of this bill because I believe our nation’s financial system faces serious challenges, and it is important for us to act.  However, I am under no illusions.  I firmly believe that Congress should not have been rushed into this action, but we needed to do something to calm the markets and restore confidence in our economy. While this package will do that in the short term, we must modify it early next year to strengthen and improve the rescue framework – and I will be leading the charge to do that.

Since George Bush signed the bailout bill into law, global and American stock markets have fallen sharply, with the Dow Jones industrial average now at its lowest point in five years.

The front-page headline on Tuesday’s Des Moines Register was apt:

Global markets plunge in response to rescue

Experts unsure what moves might restore confidence

But a week earlier, many of those “experts” insisted that disaster would strike if Congress didn’t jump on board the runaway train. Day after day, the Register’s coverage was slanted in favor of the bailout proposal.

The bailout was very bad politics, but that wouldn’t bother me so much if it had been good policy. Unfortunately, it is already turning out to be a very expensive non-solution to a big problem.

In the coming years, that non-solution will deprive us of the money needed for real solutions.

I didn’t get this notice in time to include the events on my weekly calendar, but Governor Chet Culver and Congressman Dave Loebsack will headline events today to discuss the potential for wind energy production in Iowa as well as how Barack Obama will support the wind industry.

Des Moines, Iowa – On Wednesday, October 8th, 2008, Governor Chet Culver will be joined by Iowa wind industry leaders on a tour across Iowa to announce new wind industry rankings for Iowa and unveil a new Obama policy initiative which will further help Iowa’s wind industry grow.   The tour will begin at TPI Composites in Newton, and head to Clipper Windpower in Cedar Rapids. From Cedar Rapids, Congressman Dave Loebsack will take the tour to Fort Madison, home of Siemens Power Generation, Inc.

Governor Culver will be joined by wind industry leaders from TPI Composites and Clipper Windpower, as well as Bob Gates, the 2007-08 President of the American Wind Energy Association.  The wind industry officials will discuss the future of the wind industry and highlight the importance of the wind industry in Iowa.

In addition, the Governor and wind industry leaders will be joined by Wind Energy and Turbine Technology students from the Iowa Lakes Community College in Estherville, Iowa.  The Wind Energy and Turbine Technology program is the first in the state of Iowa and is critical towards helping meet the growing demand for skilled technicians who can install, maintain and service modern wind turbines.

“The outcome of this election is very important to the future of Iowa’s wind industry,” said Governor Culver.  “The wind industry has created more than 2,000 green-collar jobs in Iowa over the last two years, and Barack Obama has a detailed plan to further invest in wind energy and make wind energy a federal priority.”

The details of the events are:

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 8TH, 2008

11:00 AM

Roundtable discussion on Iowa’s wind industry with Governor Culver and wind industry officials at TPI Composites

TPI Composites

2300 North 33rd Ave East (North of Newton across from the biodiesel plant)

Newton, Iowa

1:30 PM

Roundtable discussion on Iowa’s wind industry with Governor Culver and wind industry officials at Clipper Windpower

Clipper Windpower

4601 Bowling St. SW

Cedar Rapids, Iowa

4:00 PM  

Roundtable discussion on Iowa’s wind industry with Congressman Loebsack and wind industry officials at the Fort Madison Library

Fort Madison Library

1920 Avenue E

Fort Madison, Iowa

If you care about renewable energy and wind power, I encourage you to get involved with the Iowa Renewable Energy Association.

I’ll probably have to catch most of tonight’s big event on the replay later. I’ll update this post when I have a chance.

Use this thread to tell us what you thought about how Obama and McCain did in the debate, or to share any opinions about how the presidential campaign is going.

UPDATE: noneed4thneed is liveblogging the debate on Twitter:

http://twitter.com/commoniowan

SECOND UPDATE: I saw only a few minutes of the debate live, and I’ll have more to say after I watch the rerun.

The snap polls are giving it to Obama:

Update [2008-10-7 23:7:30 by Todd Beeton]:CNN’s snap poll: Obama won 54%-30%. Also, Obama’s favorables went up a net of 8%, McCain’s were UNCHANGED. Wow.

Update [2008-10-7 23:13:28 by Todd Beeton]:From Jonathan in the earlier thread: More actual results… CBS polling of undecided voters gave Obama the win by a 39 percent to 27 percent margin, with another 35 percent rating the debate a tie. Another wasted opportunity for the McCain campaign.

GQR focus group of undecideds split 42 percent for Obama at the end versus 24 percent for McCain.

More details on that CBS poll:

Forty percent of the 516 uncommitted voters surveyed identified Barack Obama as tonight’s winner; 26 percent said John McCain won, while 35 percent saw the debate as a draw.

After the debate, 68 percent of uncommitted voters said that they think Obama will make the right decisions on the economy, compared to 55 percent who said that before the debate. Fewer thought McCain would do so – 48 percent after the debate, and 41 percent before.

Before the debate, 59 percent thought Obama understands voters’ needs and problems; that rose to 80 percent after the debate. For McCain, 33 percent felt he understands voters’ needs before the debate, and 44 percent thought so afterwards.

There is some good news for McCain, who still dominates Obama when it comes to perceptions of readiness to be president. Before the debate, 42 percent thought Obama was prepared for the job, and that percentage rose to 58 percent after the debate. But 77 percent felt McCain was prepared for the job before the debate, and 83 percent thought so afterwards.

FINAL UPDATE: The debate was not that interesting. The format was bad, the selection of questions was mediocre, and Brokaw was a lousy moderator. Jim Lehrer did a much better job of facilitating exchanges between the candidates.

Having watched the whole thing, I can see why the snap polls favored Obama. It’s not that McCain made any big mistake (though referring to Obama as “that one” was not classy), it’s just that his answers were often meandering and less on point than Obama’s.

The debates were not Obama’s best department during the primaries, but he was solid tonight. He briefly summarized his policy proposals well. He seems very comfortable and not easily rattled. He had to go first in answering that somewhat odd final question (What don’t you know and how will you learn it?), and he managed to come up with a decent joke and a segue into comfortable turf for him.

Obama also had some effective responses to McCain, like saying there are some things he doesn’t understand about Iraq, such as why we invaded a country that didn’t attack us when we hadn’t finished the job in Afghanistan.

Many of McCain’s claims about Obama during the debate (Obama voted to raise taxes 94 times, Obama got a $3 million earmark for an overhead projector) were false, according to the CBS Fact Check.

I didn’t hear anything from McCain that seemed likely to do harm to Obama, who has been leading all the latest national polls and many of the key swing state polls. He currently wins according to nearly 90 percent of the 10,000 vote projections at fivethirtyeight.com.

In yesterday’s thread on the race between Dave Loebsack and Mariannette Miller-Meeks, secondtonone referred to the fact that a right-wing Republican group put Miller-Meeks on their “Wall of Shame.”

I assumed that this was related to bad blood from the hard-fought Republican primary in Iowa’s second Congressional district, but a commenter claiming to be a member of that group posted the following:

We would have included anyone from that race on the Wall of Shame. There was no candidate that we could have supported in that race. They all left us wanting. What do you do when it is a trio of unsatisfactory candidates?

It’s a good question, and not just a theoretical one for many of us who follow politics closely. On several occasions I have not been thrilled with any of the candidates in a Democratic primary. Many more times I have volunteered for a primary campaign, only to have a different candidate win the nomination.

What is the best way to handle this situation?

One of my dad’s favorite expressions was, “There is more than one right way,” and I think that fits the bill here.

Many people become active supporters of their party’s nominee. Regular Bleeding Heartland commenter lorih has been out knocking on doors for Barack Obama, even though she strongly preferred Hillary Clinton for president. Bleeding Heartland user secondtonone is supporting Becky Greenwald for Congress, despite having backed William Meyers in the fourth district primary.

A group of bloggers who supported Clinton created the “Clintonistas for Obama” blog, where they write regularly about the race. This group includes a few people who preferred two candidates to Obama–first John Edwards, and then Clinton after Edwards dropped out of the race.

Angry Mouse, who was a tireless and often lonely advocate for Clinton at Daily Kos during the primaries, now writes occasional diaries supporting Obama at that blog.

Another approach is to vote for the nominee you don’t care for, but focus your energy on other candidates you can support wholeheartedly. Anyone who’s been reading this blog since the spring will be aware that I am not satisfied with the representation I get from Congressman Leonard Boswell. Since he defeated Ed Fallon in the third district primary, I have mostly ignored him. Because I want the Democrats to have a large majority in Congress, I will vote for Boswell in November, as will just about every Fallon voter I know. (A few may leave that line of their ballot blank.) But I see no reason to keep re-fighting the third-district primary, even though many of the attacks on Fallon from the Boswell camp were ridiculous.

Obama’s not my favorite politician either, to put it mildly, so I decided to volunteer for down-ticket candidates in Iowa.

The blogger RDemocrat  has also focused his political energy in a constructive way since John Edwards left the presidential race. RDemocrat isn’t a fan of Obama but has spent many hours volunteering for Heather Ryan, the Democratic candidate in Kentucky’s first Congressional district.

Tough primaries are a fact of life. If you think Iowa saw some bruising ones this spring, you should have seen the battle between Jeff Merkley and Steve Novick for the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate in Oregon. Merkley won that race narrowly, and I think he’s a fantastic candidate, but many Oregon-based bloggers preferred Novick.

Are those activists spending their time taking pot-shots at Merkley? No, if you read the Democratic community blogs Loaded Orygun and Blue Oregon, you will see that they are putting their political energy to use in other ways. Here’s an example of a post in which a Novick supporter gives Merkley some credit, even though he isn’t a big fan of the candidate.

Incidentally, Novick himself has gone above and beyond the call of duty, strongly supporting Merkley’s general election campaign despite what must have been a very disappointing loss in the primary. I remember that Paul Hackett was not nearly as gracious after Sherrod Brown defeated him in the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate in Ohio two years ago.

By the same token, Hillary Clinton has been out stumping for Obama in key states like Ohio and Florida and has raised about $8 million for Obama’s campaign, even as she tries to retire her own campaign debts.

If you dislike your party’s nominee and you can’t find a different candidate you strongly support, I advise you to get involved with a non-profit organization. So many groups can use a few good volunteers, and no matter where you live, I’m sure there is some cause worth your time.

Getting back to the question at the top of this post, what is a voter to do if all of his or her party’s candidates are unacceptable? Some people might vote for a third-party candidate, as Ron Paul is asking his supporters to do in the presidential election.

My preference is to vote for the least-bad candidate if it’s a primary election. If it’s a general election, I usually hold my nose and vote for the Democrat despite my personal feelings. Only on very rare occasions have I written in someone’s name or voted for a third-party candidate rather than for the Democratic nominee.

Use this thread to share thoughts and suggestions for voters who are disappointed in their party’s nominee.