The Obama campaign continues to hold events promoting early voting, and former Missouri Senator Jean Carnahan will tour southern Iowa with this message today and tomorrow:

Des Moines – On Monday and Tuesday, former Missouri Senator Jean Carnahan will travel to South-central and Southeast Iowa to hold town hall meetings on the issues facing Iowans in this election and to talk about the importance of early voting.

“With so much at stake in this election we are thrilled to have Senator Carnahan back in Iowa to talk about Barack Obama’s commitment to issues important to Iowans and to encourage Iowans to early vote,” said Jackie Norris, Iowa State Director for Barack Obama’s presidential campaign.

Senator Carnahan will be talking about issues important in this election, as well as encouraging Obama supporters to vote early so they can volunteer on election day.

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.

DETAILS FOR SENATOR CARNAHAN’S STOPS:

MONDAY, September 29th

Creston Early Vote for Change brown bag lunch

11:30 AM

209 N. Maple St.

Creston, IA

Lamoni Early Vote for Change townhall meeting

1:30 PM

Linden St. Coffee House

104 S. Linden St.

Lamoni, IA

Centerville Early Vote for Change townhall meeting

4:00 PM

Tangleberries

104 West Jackson St.

Centerville, IA

Ottumwa Early Vote for Change townhall meeting

6:00 PM

Wapello County Campaign for Change Field Office

226 West Main Street, Suite 203

Ottumwa, IA

TUESDAY, September 30th

Fairfield Early Vote for Change coffee

8:15 AM

Jefferson County Campaign for Change Field Office

108 West Palm Drive

Fairfield, IA

Keokuk Early Vote for Change brown bag lunch

11:45 AM

The Hotel Iowa

401 Main St.

Keokuk, IA

The Board of Regents on Thursday voted not to give a raise to University of Iowa president Sally Mason after her first year on the job because of problems related to a sexual assault investigation last year. She still has a chance to earn large performance bonuses if she meets unspecified targets in the future, though.

Mason fired the dean of students and the university’s lead attorney last week for their handling of the sexual assault case. On Friday she implemented new policies regarding how staff are to deal with reported sexual assaults.

Attorney Marc Mills continues to insist that he was fired without cause and was not leading the university’s investigation into last year’s assault. I don’t know enough of the facts to make a judgment about whether he or Philip Jones deserved to be fired. I do agree with the Iowa City Press-Citizen that the Regents should not have held Mason’s performance review in closed session.

Also on Thursday, the Regents ordered state universities to follow U.S. code regarding display of the flag. Iowa State and the University of Northern Iowa already do that, but the University of Iowa has sometimes lowered the flag as a sign of respect when longtime staff or faculty die. Most recently the flag was flown at half-staff after political science professor Arthur Miller took his own life, which drew criticism because of the criminal investigation surrounding Miller.

I know we have plenty of U of I graduates in the Bleeding Heartland community. How do you feel about all this?

I stand by my contention that Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson’s bailout scheme is among the worst proposals to come out of George Bush’s very bad presidency.

So I am glad to learn that Iowa Treasurer Mike Fitzgerald wants some questions answered before urging Congress to pass the bailout. Click the link to read Marc Hansen’s column about a conference call Fitzgerald and other state treasurers had on Thursday with acting U.S. treasury undersecretary for domestic finance.

I am no economics whiz, but I can help answer Fitzgerald’s first question:

Why $700 billion?

From his office at the Capitol, Fitzgerald listened intently, waiting for the answer that never came. And what did he get instead?

“Nothing,” he says, “other than a lot of babble.”

What’s so magical about $700 billion? Fitzgerald still doesn’t know. It’s about 5 percent of the gross domestic product, if that means anything.

“Magical” is a good word for the number, because as it turns out, they just made it up.

I know this because a few days ago, Open Left diarist fladem posted this link from Forbes magazine:

In fact, some of the most basic details, including the $700 billion figure Treasury would use to buy up bad debt, are fuzzy.

“It’s not based on any particular data point,” a Treasury spokeswoman told Forbes.com Tuesday. “We just wanted to choose a really large number.”

David Sirota has written two good pieces quoting Nobel prize-winning economists and others on why there is no crisis requiring a bailout package. Here is part 1, and here is part 2.

In an alternate universe where John Edwards hadn’t disgraced himself, he could have been an effective voice against the rush to shovel taxpayer dollars to Wall Street.

Instead, we have Barack Obama’s campaign letting Roger Altman speak for them in favor of Paulson’s scheme. That’s

the same Roger Altman who was a Clinton Treasury official when the Clinton-backed deregulatory orgy was taking place, the same Roger Altman who is now an investment banker who stands to make bank if this bailout passes, the same Roger Altman who Bloomberg notes “is advising a group of investors who are trying to prevent their shares from being diluted in the U.S. takeover of American International Group Inc.” – that is, who have a direct financial interest in Paulson’s bailout package.

Watching this train barrel down the track is quite discouraging.

Great ad, “Zero,” released by Barack Obama’s campaign less than 12 hours after the presidential debate:

The Democratic political blogs seemed to think Obama’s best moment of the debate was when he pounded John McCain on being wrong about Iraq.

I liked that clip, but I think this ad is very smart, because the economy is a bigger issue for most voters than Iraq.

At fivethirtyeight.com, Nate Silver analyzes last night’s snap polls and explains why the snap polls and focus groups showed an advantage to Obama:

TPM has the internals of the CNN poll of debate-watchers, which had Obama winning overall by a margin of 51-38. The poll suggests that Obama is opening up a gap on connectedness, while closing a gap on readiness.

Specifically, by a 62-32 margin, voters thought that Obama was “more in touch with the needs and problems of people like you”. This is a gap that has no doubt grown because of the financial crisis of recent days. But it also grew because Obama was actually speaking to middle class voters. Per the transcript, McCain never once mentioned the phrase “middle class” (Obama did so three times). And Obama’s eye contact was directly with the camera, i.e. the voters at home. McCain seemed to be speaking literally to the people in the room in Mississippi, but figuratively to the punditry. It is no surprise that a small majority of pundits seemed to have thought that McCain won, even when the polls indicated otherwise; the pundits were his target audience.

[…]

McCain’s essential problem is that his fundamental strength – his experience — is specifically not viewed by voters as carrying over to the economy. And the economy is pretty much all that voters care about these days.

EDIT: The CBS poll of undecideds has more confirmatory detail. Obama went from a +18 on “understanding your needs and problems” before the debate to a +56 (!) afterward. And he went from a -9 on “prepared to be president” to a +21.

Click the link, because Silver’s piece is worth your time.

Speaking of the pundits who were McCain’s target audience, the Des Moines Register’s David Yepsen thought McCain won the debate.  

The great actor and philanthropist Paul Newman died yesterday at the age of 83. You can read about his life and work here.

The Newman’s Own Foundation issued this statement:

Newman’s Own Foundation Celebrates the Life and Legacy of Paul Newman

(January 26, 1925 – September 26, 2008)

Last update: 9:14 a.m. EDT Sept. 27, 2008

WESTPORT, Conn., Sept 27, 2008 PRNewswire via COMTEX — Remembering the life and legacy of Paul Newman, Newman’s Own Foundation has issued a statement. The statement, from Vice-Chairman Robert Forrester, follows:

“Paul Newman’s craft was acting. His passion was racing. His love was his family and friends. And his heart and soul were dedicated to helping make the world a better place for all.

“Paul had an abiding belief in the role that luck plays in one’s life, and its randomness. He was quick to acknowledge the good fortune he had in his own life, beginning with being born in America, and was acutely aware of how unlucky so many others were. True to his character, he quietly devoted himself to helping offset this imbalance.

“An exceptional example is the legacy of Newman’s Own. What started as something of a joke in the basement of his home, turned into a highly-respected, multi-million dollar a year food company. And true to form, he shared this good fortune by donating all the profits and royalties he earned to thousands of charities around the world, a total which now exceeds $250 million.

“While his philanthropic interests and donations were wide-ranging, he was especially committed to the thousands of children with life-threatening conditions served by the Hole in the Wall Camps, which he helped start over 20 years ago. He saw the Camps as places where kids could escape the fear, pain and isolation of their conditions, kick back, and raise a little hell. Today, there are 11 Camps around the world, with additional programs in Africa and Vietnam. Through the Camps, well over 135,000 children have had the chance to experience what childhood was meant to be.

“In Paul’s words: “I wanted to acknowledge luck; the chance and benevolence of it in my life, and the brutality of it in the lives of others, who might not be allowed the good fortune of a lifetime to correct it.”

“Paul took advantage of what life offered him, and while personally reluctant to acknowledge that he was doing anything special, he forever changed the lives of many with his generosity, humor, and humanness. His legacy lives on in the charities he supported and the Hole in the Wall Camps, for which he cared so much.

“We will miss our friend Paul Newman, but are lucky ourselves to have known such a remarkable person.”

Many celebrities support charitable causes, but by creating Newman’s Own and building it into a successful business, Paul Newman was able to generate far more money for charity than he could have given out of his own pocket.

Newman was not among the most politically-active Hollywood stars, but he did make Richard Nixon’s enemies list, which made him proud:

“Nixon didn’t like my campaigning for Democratic presidential candidate Eugene McCarthy. But then again, he didn’t much care for debate, dissent, or the Constitution either.

“I was proud to stand with Democrats against an imperial president back then.  And I am proud now to stand with a new generation of Democrats against a president who poses what I believe to be the biggest internal threat  to American democracy in my lifetime.

Newman did not take sides in this year’s Democratic primary, donating generously to several presidential candidates and maxing out to both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

After the jump I’ve created a poll where you can vote for your favorite Paul Newman movie. Share your thoughts and memories in the comments.

Via Talking Points Memo. It’s so nice to have a running mate you don’t have to hide from the media:

Biden has a reputation for being gaffe-prone, but when he’s on, he is on. Crushes McCain on Iraq, the surge, his record on fighting terrorism and supporting veterans.

Biden’s last sentence is the most important: “I think John was on his strongest turf today, and he lost and I think it’s gonna be fatal.”

I’ve been hoping for weeks that Barack Obama would find some way to get under John McCain’s skin during the first presidential debate. In less than an hour we’ll see what he’s got.

I have to believe Obama walks onto the stage with a huge psychological advantage. McCain’s ridiculous stunts this week failed to achieve any favorable outcomes:

1. He failed to demonstrate any ability to handle a crisis. Instead, he looked like an uninformed hothead, saying he would fire the head of the Securities Exchange Commission, when the president has no such authority. Later in the week, he admitted that he had not read Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson’s bailout plan, even though it’s only three pages long.

2. He failed to deliver a deal on the bailout. On the contrary, it looks like McCain’s presence in Washington was detrimental to the negotiations.

3. He backed down from his promise not to attend the first presidential debate unless a bailout deal had been reached. One thing I’ve learned from parenting is never make a threat if you are not willing to follow through.

4. He failed to delay the vice-presidential debate by getting the first presidential debate rescheduled for October 2.

5. Tracking polls and key state polls are not moving in McCain direction. Instead, Obama now has a five-point lead in the tracking poll average, his largest of the campaign.

Debating is not Obama’s strong suit, but McCain has to be feeling more pressure tonight after his disastrous week.

I’ll watch the repeat later tonight. Meanwhile, this is an open thread for any comments related to the debate, the bailout, or the state of the presidential campaign now.

UPDATE: I caught part of the first half. McCain landed a punch regarding Bush’s terrible energy bill. Ouch. Of course Obama can’t say the truth, which is that he (and other good Democrats such as Tom Harkin) voted for a bad energy bill because it had subsidies for corn-based ethanol and coal.

However, then McCain made a big deal out of being for constructing a bunch of new nuclear power plants. Are Americans for more nuclear power? I’m not sure.

SECOND UPDATE: Listening to most of the second half on the radio, I feel Obama has done very well. However, I regret that McCain hasn’t made any big gaffes or unpresidential comments, from my perspective. I think he is wrong about a lot of things, but I doubt that a typical uninformed voter would see through his rhetoric.

I don’t like the way McCain keeps saying Obama is naive, doesn’t get it, etc. That seems like a talking point the right-wing noise machine could hammer mercilessly for days. It’s of course false, but when has that stopped them before?

On the plus side, over at Daily Kos georgia10 posted this:

If you’re watching the debate on CNN, they have a “dial” reaction chart on the bottom of the screen.  If the audience likes what the candidate is saying, they dial up and the lines go up. If they don’t, they dial down and the numbers tank.

Generally speaking, independents (and obviously Democrats) are registering far more positives for Obama than McCain.  Indeed, at certain points, the numbers among indys have taken a nosedive when McCain sets forth Bush’s his policy proposals.

I also thought Obama did a great job of repeatedly pointing out how the Bush administration dropped the ball on getting Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan because we’ve been focused on Iraq.

THIRD UPDATE: I missed Obama’s closing statement but caught part of McCain’s. Again, I am concerned that he was able to keep on talking about his record of bipartisanship and/or opposing his own party when necessary. I feel that makes it hard for Obama to characterize McCain as George Bush’s third term.

I don’t think Obama hurt himself tonight at all, but I am afraid McCain may have helped himself.

On the other hand, since Obama is leading, perhaps it’s good enough for him to have turned in a solid performance with no big mistakes.

Let’s hope the vice-presidential debate shines a spotlight on McCain’s habit of making rash decisions without thinking things through.

FOURTH UPDATE: CBS snap poll of uncommitted voters finds 40 percent think Obama won, 38 percent think it was a tie, and 22 percent think McCain won.

Obama won the CNN snap poll as well. I was particularly struck by the some of the subgroups: huge gender gap, with McCain doing slightly better among men but Obama crushing McCain by nearly 30 18 points among women. Amazingly, CNN respondents over 50 thought Obama won by a 48-40 margin. That’s McCain’s strongest age group.

FIFTH UPDATE: Daily Kos user Eileen B pointed me toward this clip. When Obama makes fun of McCain for not knowing who the leader of Spain was, McCain says, “Horsesh*t.”

I was listening on the radio and didn’t catch this. Will the media pick it up?

Or was McCain saying, “Of course?”

The Des Moines Register reports that major labor unions in Iowa are giving to Democratic candidates for the state legislature this year, but not to Governor Chet Culver. The article mentions the Iowa State Education Association, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Council 61, and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, among others.

The bad blood between Culver and organized labor stems primarily from the governor’s veto of a collective bargaining bill that was rushed through the legislature this year.

As I’ve written before, I think labor advocates are wrong to put all of the blame on Culver for the mess surrounding the collective bargaining bill.

But I think they are absolutely right to focus their giving on the state legislative races now. The bigger the Democratic majority, the better the chance of getting good bills on labor issues through the legislative process. The collective bargaining bill could be revived and passed the normal way, without limited debate.

The “fair share” bill that cleared the Iowa Senate in 2007 but not the House could probably be passed with a pickup of a handful of House seats this year. Culver said in 2007 that he supported “fair share,” and I think he is almost certain to sign such a bill if it reaches his desk.

There’s no reason for unions to give Culver money now. It’s far more important to expand the Democratic majorities in the legislature. There will be plenty of time for them to donate to Culver’s gubernatorial campaign in 2009 and 2010, depending on his actions during next year’s legislative session.  

I’ve written before about why Democrats should support Rob Hubler, who’s running against Steve King in Iowa’s fifth Congressional district.

We can all agree that Hubler is a good Democrat with a compelling biography, while King is among the worst of the worst House Republicans.

But when I talk to Democrats about this race, I’ve noticed that too many people assume King cannot be beaten because Iowa’s fifth district is too Republican (its Cook Partisan Voting Index is R+8).

In fact, ten Democrats currently represent Congressional districts with a partisan index of R+8 or higher, and another 14 Democrats represent Congressional districts that have a partisan index between R+5 and R+8. In 2006, Democrats came close to winning several districts that tilt far more strongly to Republicans than King’s.

2laneIA and DemocracyLover in NYC have written good pieces on why Hubler is a solid contender in IA-05. Click those links to read about Hubler’s active campaign, King’s strangely dormant campaign, and an encouraging poll of the fifth district (which among other things showed the generic Congressional ballot virtually tied). King has faced only token opposition in past elections, but Hubler and his staff have been working in all of the 32 counties.

I want to step back and examine the partisan lean of IA-05 and how it relates to other red districts represented by Democrats.

As I mentioned above, IA-05 has a Cook Partisan Voting Index of R+8. That means that averaging the results from the last two presidential elections, the Republican candidate received about 8 percentage points more than the national average in Iowa’s fifth district.

The partisan index number reflects only the presidential vote. However, plenty of Congressional districts lean Republican for president while electing Democrats to represent them in the House. Such ticket-splitting has occurred in western Iowa. During the 1970s and 1980s, Tom Harkin represented many of the southwest counties now in IA-05 for five terms, and Berkley Bedell represented most of the northwest counties in the district for six terms.

It’s worth noting that Harkin and Bedell were first elected in the Democratic wave election of 1974, but they were able to hold their seats even in strong Republican years like 1978 and 1980 (and in Bedell’s case 1984; Harkin ran successfully for Senate that year).

Also, remember that this year’s Republican presidential nominee is not nearly as popular in the fifth district as George Bush was in 2000 and 2004. On the contrary; some polls have shown Barack Obama leading John McCain even in western Iowa. McCain has little field operation here, while Obama’s campaign has at least a half-dozen offices in IA-05 to help maximize Democratic turnout.

Democratic voter registration has greatly increased in all parts of the state. While Republicans still have a voter registration edge in the fifth district, the growing ranks of Democrats can put Hubler in position for an upset if he beats King among independent voters by a significant margin.

Certainly the Republican candidate has to be favored in a district with an R+8 lean, but it is by no means unprecedented for a Democrat to overcome that partisan slant. Here’s a list of the Democrats who represent Congressional districts that are at least R+5 (please correct any omissions in the comments):

Dan Boren in Oklahoma 2 (R+5)

Melissa Bean in Illinois 8 (R+5)

Bill Foster in Illinois 14 (R+5)

Charlie Melancon in Louisiana 3 (R+5)

John Spratt, South Carolina 5 (R+6)

Collin Peterson, Minnesota 7 (R+6)

Zach Space in Ohio 18 (R+6)

John Salazar Colorado 5 (R+6)

Bud Cramer in Alabama 5 (R+6)

Ben Chandler in Kentucky 6 (R+7)

Nancy Boyda in Kansas 2 (R+7)

Baron Hill in Indiana 9 (R+7)

Heath Shuler, North Carolina 11 (R+7)

Don Cazayoux in Louisiana 6 (R+7)

Chris Carney in Pennsylvania 10 (R+8)

Brad Ellsworth in Indiana 8 (R+9)

Travis Childers, Mississippi 1 (R+10)

Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin, South Dakota at-large (R+10)

Ike Skelton, Missouri 4 (R+11)

Earl Pomeroy, North Dakota at-large (R+13)

Nick Lampson, Texas 22 (R+15)

Gene Taylor, Mississippi 4 (R+16)

Chet Edwards, Texas 17 (R+17)

Jim Matheson, Utah 2 (R+17)

You would think that all of these Democrats would be skating on thin ice, representing such Republican territory. However, if you look at lists of competitive House districts (for instance, at Swing State Project, Open Left or the Cook Political Report), you will notice that many of these seats are considered safe for the Democratic incumbent.

Boyda, Herseth-Sandlin and Pomeroy are among the Democrats representing deep-red districts with demographic profiles similar to IA-05 (mostly white and largely rural).

Another notable fact is that Democrats seem to pick up several deep-red seats in good years for the party across the country. So, Boyda, Space, Shuler, Carney and Ellsworth all won their seats for the first time in the 2006 election. Cazayoux, Foster and Childers all won their seats in special elections during 2008.

I also want to mention several districts where Democrats lost narrowly in 2006 despite a massive partisan advantage for the Republicans. Those include Wyoming’s at-large seat (R+19), Idaho’s first district (R+19), Ohio’s second district (R+13), and Colorado’s fourth district (R+9). This year Colorado’s fourth and Alaska’s at-large seat (R+14) are both considered tossups.

My point is that it would not be unprecedented for a Democratic challenger to defeat a Republican incumbent in a district like IA-05. King is still favored to win here, but there are good reasons the DCCC put this seat on its “Races to Watch” list.

If you live in the fifth district, I encourage you to sign up to volunteer for Hubler’s campaign. This Saturday is a district-wide volunteer day. You can also help by telling your friends and neighbors about Rob and encouraging them to vote for “a servant, not a King.”

Whether or not you live in the district, I hope you will donate to Rob’s campaign. King’s war chest is not particularly large for an incumbent. Strong fundraising for Hubler by the September 30 deadline will help persuade the DCCC to become more actively involved in this race.

With your help, Iowa’s west can be won.

I received this message yesterday from Elesha Gayman's campaign saying there are just 40 days until the election.  That means today there are just 39. 

Early voting started throughout Iowa yesterday and we need to do everything we can to support strong progressive candidates.  

Iwould like to encourage people to donate to Elesha's campaign or to Tim Hoy, Eric Palmer, Jerry Sullivan, and Sharon Steckman through the Iowa Blogs: Expanding the Majority page on Act Blue.  With your help we can help expand the Democratic Majority in the Iowa House.

We have forty days until the polls close and the ballots are counted. I am asking you to pledge $40 or 40 hours to the campaign between now and election day! If you can even do $4 or 4 hours your help will make the difference! (www.eleshagayman.com)

We have a lot of money left to raise and we have everything from knocking doors, making phone calls, placing yard signs, and helping with data entry. The Republicans are throwing everything and the kitchen sink my way and the negative attacks have begun.

Please send an email to my campaign manager, Matt Singer, at msinger@iowademocrats.org or call 734-846-0302 if you can help!

You can make donations online by visiting my website at www.eleshagayman.com and clicking on contribute. Or you can mail donations to: Elesha Gayman for Iowa, PO Box 2567 – Davenport, IA 52809.

Anything you can do to help will be greatly appreciated!

Elesha

I had a doctor’s appointment this morning, and they had the CBS Early Show on in the waiting room. One of the anchors was down in Oxford, Mississippi on the Ole Miss campus, where the first presidential debate is scheduled to be held tonight.

Behind him a crowd of mostly white students cheered and waved “Change We Need” signs.

That’s right, a bunch of white kids cheered for a black presidential nominee on the Ole Miss campus, where a building still has bullet marks from the violence that accompanied black student James Meredith’s enrollment in 1962.

It’s a great day for this country, even if John McCain decides not to show up to debate Barack Obama.

Granny Doc has more on this from the perspective of someone who remembers the civil rights unrest.

Otherwise she would not be able to make a fool of herself like this on national television:

It’s incredible that so few Republicans have called her out for being totally unprepared and unqualified.

Josh Marshall has the punch line: as governor, Palin hasn’t shown much interest in ties with Russia, according to the Seattle Times.

Opportunities abound for Alaska governors to engage in Russian diplomacy, with the state host to several organizations focusing on Arctic issues. Anchorage is the seat of the Northern Forum, an 18-year-old organization that represents the leaders of regional governments in Russia, as well as Finland, Iceland and Canada, Japan, China and South Korea.

Yet under Palin, the state government – without consultation – reduced its annual financial support to the Northern Forum to $15,000 from $75,000, according to Priscilla Wohl, the group’s executive director. That forced the forum’s Anchorage office to go without pay for two months.

Palin – unlike the previous administrations of Gov. Frank Murkowski and Gov. Tony Knowles – also stopped sending representatives to Northern Forum’s annual meetings, including one last year for regional governors held in the heart of Russia’s oil territory.

“It was an opportunity for the Alaska governor to take a delegation of business leaders to the largest oil-producing region in Russia, and she would have been shaking hands with major leaders in Russia,” Wohl said.

UPDATE: Rumor is that CBS has even more devastating footage they have not released yet.

The McCain campaign is said to be very worried about the VP debate, since practice sessions have been “disastrous.”

Palin has now lost conservative columnist Kathleen Parker:

Palin’s recent interviews with Charles Gibson, Sean Hannity, and now Katie Couric have all revealed an attractive, earnest, confident candidate. Who Is Clearly Out Of Her League.

No one hates saying that more than I do. Like so many women, I’ve been pulling for Palin, wishing her the best, hoping she will perform brilliantly. I’ve also noticed that I watch her interviews with the held breath of an anxious parent, my finger poised over the mute button in case it gets too painful. Unfortunately, it often does. My cringe reflex is exhausted.

Palin filibusters. She repeats words, filling space with deadwood. Cut the verbiage and there’s not much content there. Here’s but one example of many from her interview with Hannity: “Well, there is a danger in allowing some obsessive partisanship to get into the issue that we’re talking about today. And that’s something that John McCain, too, his track record, proving that he can work both sides of the aisle, he can surpass the partisanship that must be surpassed to deal with an issue like this.”

When Couric pointed to polls showing that the financial crisis had boosted Obama’s numbers, Palin blustered wordily: “I’m not looking at poll numbers. What I think Americans at the end of the day are going to be able to go back and look at track records and see who’s more apt to be talking about solutions and wishing for and hoping for solutions for some opportunity to change, and who’s actually done it?”

If BS were currency, Palin could bail out Wall Street herself.

For more reviews of Palin’s interview with Couric, click here.  

A few weeks ago I read that Ron Paul was not endorsing any presidential candidate but was urging his supporters to vote for the third-party candidate of their choice–anyone but Barack Obama or John McCain.

However, this week Paul endorsed Constitution Party candidate Chuck Baldwin. The Wall Street Journal blog pointed me toward this letter from Paul to supporters, which contains a bit of a rebuke to Libertarian candidate Bob Barr:

The Libertarian Party Candidate admonished me for “remaining neutral” in the presidential race and not stating whom I will vote for in November.   It’s true; I have done exactly that due to my respect and friendship and support from both the Constitution and Libertarian Party members.  I remain a lifetime member of the Libertarian Party and I’m a ten-term Republican Congressman.  It is not against the law to participate in more then one political party.  Chuck Baldwin has been a friend and was an active supporter in the presidential campaign.

I continue to wish the Libertarian and Constitution Parties well.  The more votes they get, the better.  I have attended Libertarian Party conventions frequently over the years.

In some states, one can be on the ballots of two parties, as they can in New York.  This is good and attacks the monopoly control of politics by Republicans and Democrats.  We need more states to permit this option.  This will be a good project for the Campaign for Liberty, along with the alliance we are building to change the process.

I’ve thought about the unsolicited advice from the Libertarian Party candidate, and he has convinced me to reject my neutral stance in the November election.  I’m supporting Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party candidate.

When you think about what an insiders’ club Congress is, it’s amazing that Paul (still a Republican Congressman from Texas) did not endorse his former colleague Barr, who represented Georgia for many years in the House. Barr has denounced the Republican Party for embracing big government and not insisting that the president abide by the law.

The big question for me is whether Paul’s endorsement of Baldwin will cut into Barr’s support in some of the key swing states. I’ve argued before that Barr could tip Nevada to Obama, but ProgressiveSouth writes that Barr could also be a factor in North Carolina.

Anyone out there know any Ron Paul voters or caucus-goers? Will they settle for McCain, sit out the election or vote for a third-party alternative?

For the record, nine presidential candidates will appear on the Iowa ballot, including Baldwin and Barr.

I haven’t written much about Leonard Boswell since the Democratic primary for the third Congressional district, because there hasn’t been much to say. He hasn’t been campaigning much, nor has he needed to. IA-03 is not a competitive House district according to any of the people who follow Congressional races closely (for instance, Swing State Project, the Cook Report and Open Left).

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) spent money to defend Boswell in 2004 and 2006 but hasn’t seen the need for that this year.

So I was more than a little annoyed to receive a fundraising solicitation from Dody Boswell this week:

Dear Friends,

First, thank you all for your support with Leonard’s campaign.  I know we’ve all been working hard for the last few months and now we only have 50 days to go!  It’s great to know so many of you have already gone online to donate.

It is truly with urgency, that I need to ask you again to help out my husband.  The election is closing in and we need to raise enough money to buy some media for the last few weeks of the campaign.  We also have the reporting deadline in two weeks on September 30 and need to show the press that we have the funds to compete.

Our goal is within reach and I know if everyone donated at least forty-two more dollars we will make that goal!!!  You can donate at www.boswellforcongress.com or click on the link below.

PLEASE CONTRIBUTE $42.00 BEFORE THE SEPTEMBER 30 DEADLINE!!!

I can personally tell you how hard Leonard works for us.  And that he appreciates everything that you do to allow him to continue his efforts on our behalf in Washington.

I thank you so very much,

Dody

PS – Your small contribution of $42 really will make all the difference!

Boswell for Congress

P.O. Box 6220

Des Moines, IA 50309

Excuse me, Boswell needs “to show the press that we have the funds to compete”?

As of June 30, Boswell had $393,852 on hand, while little-known Republican challenger Kim Schmett had $28,768. Boswell has held several fundraisers since then.

He should not be asking constituents for more money. He should be handing over a large chunk of his campaign account to the DCCC so they can use it to play for more Republican-held seats and to defend truly vulnerable incumbents (the way the DCCC helped Boswell in past years).

You can reach Boswell’s Congressional office at (202)225-3806.

You can reach his campaign headquarters at (515)883-2254 or Campaign@BoswellForCongress.com.

Tell his staff that you want him to give at least 10 percent of his campaign’s cash on hand to the DCCC.

For more on this year’s Use It or Lose It campaign, read this post by Lucas O’Connor. If every safe House incumbent handed over 10 percent of his or her campaign account, the DCCC would have an additional $8.3 million to use in competitive races.

On a different subject, I called Boswell’s Congressional office yesterday and was told he did not have any statement yet on the bailout proposal. What do you want to bet he was among the Blue Dogs who urged Nancy Pelosi today to move toward the position of the Bush administration and corporate lobbyists?

I’ll fill in that oval next to Boswell’s name on the ballot, but he won’t get a dime from me.

I’m giving as much as I can afford to Rob Hubler and Becky Greenwald.

Midnight tonight (September 25) is the deadline to submit comments on a rule proposed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. A few weeks ago Planned Parenthood Action sounded the alarm about this proposal, which would allow health care providers to refuse to provide care that goes against their personal beliefs. This diary contains a link to a pdf file of the relevant document from HHS and explains how it could affect women’s health care:

Tweaking the interpretation of existing law, ALL employees of health care organizations would be able to refuse to be associated with providing services to which they are opposed.  The administration says the new rule is targeted at abortion, but the trouble is they have made the rule so vague it could apply across the spectrum in health care, including the birth control women need to prevent abortions.

Creating a special class of employees based on personal beliefs allows everyone from the doctor to the receptionist have a say in your health care.  Any employee can deny care to a patient, and the organization is helpless to take action to correct the situation.

   * The receptionist who schedules your appointment may not do so because he or she does not agree with the type of contraception you use.

   * The doctor may not tell you about all of your options because they are opposed based on their religious beliefs.

A health care organization that ensures patients get access to necessary services may lose its ability to provide federal assistance to low-income patients because of one employee.  And they can take no corrective action.

Cecile Richards, who leads the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, sent out an e-mail yesterday urging concerned citizens to submit a public comment:

The Bush administration has issued a rule that would limit the rights of patients to receive complete and accurate reproductive health information when they visit a health care provider. It’s more of the Bush administration’s bad medicine, and this is our last chance to stop it.

This new rule could allow individual health care providers to redefine abortion to include the most common forms of birth control – and then refuse to provide these basic services. A woman’s ability to manage her own health care is at risk of being compromised by politics and ideology. We have until September 25 at midnight to voice our opposition.

If elected, the McCain/Palin ticket promises to be the most anti-choice administration ever. But first, the current president seems determined to do as much damage as he can before he leaves office. We have just one more day to voice our opposition to the Bush administration rule. Please take a moment right now to add your name to the hundreds of thousands of others who will not stand by and let this happen without a fight.

The Planned Parenthood Action Center has created a page where you can submit your comments on this proposed rule. It’s easy, so please do weigh in.

I forgot that our lame duck fearless leader was going to address the nation tonight on why we should hand over $700 billion to his buddies on Wall Street.

I saw that Warren Buffett is investing $5 billion in Goldman Sachs and will receive equity in return. Why should taxpayers settle for less?

This is an open thread for anything related to the bailout or Bush’s speech. How did he look and sound?

This time it’s a Marist poll, conducted between September 18 and September 21, showing Barack Obama beating John McCain in Iowa by 51 percent to 41 percent. That makes five polls in the last month showing Obama above 50 percent and with a double-digit lead here.

How do you like not being a swing state anymore?

Remember, people need to vote for Democrats all the way down the ticket. If Obama wins Iowa by 10 points or more, we should be able to win seats in Congress and the state legislature.

John McCain announced that he is suspending his campaign events and wants to delay the first presidential debate, scheduled for Friday, because of the economic crisis. Talking Points Memo has the full text of McCain’s statement.

A few days ago, he was still saying the fundamentals of our economy are strong.

Apparently Barack Obama called McCain this morning

to ask him if he would join in issuing a joint statement outlining their shared principles and conditions for the Treasury proposal and urging Congress and the White House to act in a bipartisan manner to pass such a proposal. At 2:30 this afternoon, Senator McCain returned Senator Obama’s call and agreed to join him in issuing such a statement.  The two campaigns are currently working together on the details.

Then McCain went public on postponing the first debate. I’m with Chris Bowers: this was a cheap stunt to “upstage Obama after Obama made the first ‘bi-partisan’ move.”

I also agree with Bowers that Obama was foolish to try to minimize the distinction between himself and McCain on this issue. His campaign should be pounding on McCain’s role in deregulating the banking industry, and the fact that McCain surrounds himself with corporate lobbyists.

Anyway, at least the Obama campaign is insisting that “The debate is on.” They should not fall for this maneuver.

Note that it doesn’t cost McCain much to suspend his stump speeches–he doesn’t exactly draw huge crowds, and it’s probably tiring to be on the road every day. I doubt he’ll cut back on his television advertising. CORRECTION: McCain’s spokesperson says he is taking his campaign’s television ads off the air. No word yet on whether the Republican National Committee or 527 groups that support McCain will do the same.

UPDATE: Ben Smith has Obama’s response:

“It’s my belief that this is exactly the time the American people need to hear from the person who in approximately 40 days will be responsible with dealing with this mess,” he said. “In my mind, actually, it’s more important than ever that we present ourselves to the American people and try to describe where we want to take the country and where we wnt to take the economy as well as dealing with some of the issues of foreign policy that were initially the subject of the debate.”

[…]

“Presidents are going to have to deal with more than one thing at a time,” he says. “It’s not necessary for us to think that we can do only one thing, and suspend everything else.”

SECOND UPDATE: Now CNN says the McCain campaign wants to move the first presidential debate to October 2, when the vice-presidential debate is currently scheduled. So they want to use this crisis as an excuse for delaying the VP debate. I share Hunter’s suspicion that the VP debate might never get rescheduled if the Obama campaign allows it to be delayed.

Meanwhile, Todd Beeton heard on Fox News that “John McCain currently does not plan to attend the debate Friday night but that if a plan is agreed to by Friday, he will.”

I hope Congressional Democrats do not give in to this blackmail. Let Obama show up next to an empty podium at the first debate. Who’d look “ready to lead” then?

You may recall that Al Gore carried Iowa by two votes per precinct, but did you know that early voting gave Gore his margin of victory here?

I explained why I vote early here, and Justus wrote a more comprehensive piece on the subject at BooMan Tribune.

Every vote Democrats bank early reduces the chance of losing votes through illness or family emergencies. Every vote Democrats bank early means one less phone number for volunteers to call, and one less door for canvassers to knock on election day.

The Obama campaign in Iowa is running 21 phone banks today to promote early voting. There will also be 17 “vote early for change” supporter gatherings tomorrow morning across the state. Details for all those events are after the jump.

Even if you don’t have time to volunteer today or tomorrow, keep your eye out for anyone you know who might be willing to vote before election day. On Tuesday I ran into an elderly neighbor whose husband has a lot of health problems. She’s got her hands full, so I asked her if she needed absentee ballot request forms. She said that would be wonderful–she hadn’t had time yet to look into how that worked. I went home and called the Obama precinct captain in my neighborhood, and she had a volunteer run the forms over a few hours later.

Remember to tell your friends and family that they should fill out the whole ballot and not just vote for Barack Obama. We need to win those down-ticket races.

Also remember that there are many ways to volunteer that do not involve calling strangers on the phone or knocking on strangers’ doors.

You can bring food to a campaign headquarters, offer to sort literature for the canvassers, put up an out-of-town volunteer in your spare room, or even do laundry or errands for a campaign staffer. Or, just call your local campaign office to ask what kind of help they need.

Two months after the Board of Regents ordered an external investigation of how the University of Iowa handled a sexual assault case last year, two senior university officials got the ax:

University of Iowa President Sally Mason today fired Phillip Jones, 67, vice president for student services, and Marcus Mills, 52, vice president for legal affairs and general counsel.

Mason’s actions came after the Stolar Partnership last week released a report to the Iowa Board of Regents that heavily criticized Mills’ and Jones’ actions after the alleged sexual assault at Hillcrest Residence Hall on Oct. 14, 2007. The review by the St. Louis law firm found “numerous and substantial flaws” in not only the U of I’s response to the assault, but also in its policies, procedures and practices.

According to the Des Moines Register, Mason fired Jones and Mills after they refused to resign, and neither will receive severance pay.

It’s likely to be a career-ending action for Jones, who had worked at the University of Iowa for 40 years. I don’t know him personally, but I have heard good things about him from faculty and former students in Iowa City. Jones refused to comment when contacted by the Register.

Mills spoke out, though:

Mills said Tuesday night he believed he was unfairly singled out in today’s dismissal and in the Stolar report.

“I believe I handled the matter to the best of my ability under the circumstances,” Mills said in a phone interview.

He said he disagreed with the Stolar report’s assessment of his actions. He said he did not have a conflict of interest in acting as U of I general counsel and liaison with the alleged victim’s family.

Mills said investigators did not allow him to give his version of six phone conversations he had with the alleged victim’s father. Mills also disagreed with the law firm’s assessment that he should have asked a judge to permit the U of I to release documents pertaining to the report, he said tonight.

“I’m disappointed that the president and the regents didn’t have an opportunity to get a fuller view,” Mills said.

What do you think? Did Jones and Mills deserve to lose their jobs, or were they scapegoated? Should anyone else be sacked over the way the university dealt with this case?

The Board of Regents delayed Mason’s first performance review until after investigators finished their report. I doubt they will fire her, but I wouldn’t be surprised if she gets no raise, or a smaller raise than the Iowa State and University of Northern Iowa presidents.