Hillary Clinton released her delegates earlier today and told them that they could vote their conscience, but she had voted for Barack Obama.

Later she urged the convention to nominate Obama by acclamation, which it did enthusiastically.

This is an open thread for discussing any of Wednesday’s speeches or other events at the convention. Bill Clinton and Joe Biden will be the prime-time highlights. (By the way, one of my neighbors has put her Biden for president yard sign back in front of her house. She is “fired up and ready to go,” as they say.)

After the jump I’ve posted the text of Governor Chet Culver’s remarks (as prepared) to the DNC yesterday. He focused on energy policy, which is certainly among my top 10 reasons for Americans to vote for Obama.

UDPATE: When Bill Kristol idiotically claimed last night that Hillary Clinton gave a weak endorsement of Obama, he noted that she hadn’t said Obama would be a good commander in chief.

Guess what? Today’s theme is national security, and Bill Clinton has already said,

“In Barack Obama, America will have the national security leadership we need. My fellow Democrats, I say to you Barack Obama is ready to lead America…”

Got that, Mr. Kristol?

cross-posted at La Vida Locavore and the EENR progressive blog

My son just started kindergarten in the Des Moines public system. His school has a wonderful and caring staff, and he is having a great time, as he did in the pre-school program there.

Unfortunately, like almost all public schools these days, this school relies on fundraising by the parents’ group to pay for essential school supplies.

The parents’ group decided years ago not to have our kids sell chocolate or wrapping paper or some other overpriced product to raise money, and I appreciate that.

They have opted this year to participate in the Tyson Project A+ label collection program, which is sponsored by Tyson Foods, Inc.

A sheet went home with my son encouraging parents to clip and save Tyson Project A+ labels, which are worth 24 cents each for the school:

Through this program, we can raise as much as $12,000 for our school this year! The money we raise can go towards buying books or computers, making improvements to our buildings, or anything else that we want.

Here is a list of 53 Tyson chicken products with labels I can clip and collect for the school.

Most Tyson chicken products contain meat from birds that have been treated with antibiotics, which may be a leading contributor to drug-resistant bacteria.

Tyson fired several employees earlier this year following reports of excessive cruelty at two of its factories.

Two years ago, Tyson had to pay $1.5 million in back pay for hiring discrimination. In 2002, the U.S. Department of Labor sued the company for pay practices that violated the Fair Labor Standards Act. In 2005, Tyson Foods paid the state of Kentucky $184,515 to settle six cases related to worker safety, including one that stemmed from a fatal accident.

Tyson also has a history of profiting from the employment of illegal immigrants. In fact, some of its managers were involved in recruiting illegal immigrants to work at Tyson factories, which led to a

36-count federal indictment that prosecutors obtained against Tyson in December 2001. The company was charged in U.S. District Court in Chattanooga with having, among other things, engaged in an elaborate seven-year scheme to recruit hundreds, if not thousands, of illegal immigrants from Mexico and Guatemala for its poultry plants in at least 12 states. Six of Tyson’s mid-level executives or plant managers were also indicted. But in the end, even though Tyson was benefiting from illegal workers laboring in its plants, the executives avoided conviction.

It was the most ambitious criminal immigration case ever against an employer. Prosecutors demanded $100 million as a forfeiture penalty that they said represented the company’s ill-gotten gains. The transcript for the six-and-a-half-week trial ran 5,464 pages. On March 26, the jury rendered its verdict: not guilty on all counts.

The sting had caught several Tyson managers or their assistants on audiotape and videotape plotting to recruit and hire illegal aliens for several plants, including the one at Shelbyville. Seven Tyson employees, whom the company eventually fired, had quietly pleaded guilty to immigration-related offenses.

During the late 1990s, Tyson employed 67,000 workers at 55 poultry plants. Court testimony established that a number of those workers were illegal, some hired directly and some through temp agencies.

I buy chicken directly from sustainable farmers or from the Wholesome Harvest coalition of small organic family farmers, which has been endorsed by the Organic Consumers Association. I don’t like feeling pressure to buy Tyson chicken products in order to pay for classroom supplies and school improvements.

Inadequate funding for public schools is the root of this problem. The parents’ group organizes several fundraising projects during the year, including a chili supper and silent auction which is always a success. But it’s not easy to raise significant funds without urging kids to sell products people don’t need. A concert for the school, featuring a famous children’s artist, lost money two years ago.

Programs like Tyson Project A+ probably seem like a good deal to parents who would be buying some of these foods anyway. For my part, I plan to donate $50 directly to the parents’ group. I’d have to buy more than 200 Tyson products to raise an equivalent amount through this label collection program.

UPDATE: Thanks to ragbrai08, who noted that I forgot to mention Tyson’s settlement with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in November 2006 “for $871,000 on behalf of black workers who alleged that they were racially harassed and retaliated against at a chicken processing plant in Ashland, Alabama.”

I forgot to put up an open thread on the convention last night and only watched Hillary Clinton on the web much later. What an powerful and moving speech. I cried, and I wasn’t even one of her supporters during the primaries.

What was your favorite part? Todd Beeton thought the Harriet Tubman reference (“Keep going!”) was “the moment of the night.”

The sound bites grabbed by most media were “No way, no how, no McCain” and her opening line: “I’m here as a proud mother, a proud Democrat, a proud Senator from New York, a proud American and a proud supporter of Barack Obama.”

I thought she did a great job acknowledging her supporters and then asking those who were considering John McCain whether they were in it only for her or for the people she fought for.

Saying it made sense for McCain and George Bush to be together in the Twin Cities next week, because it’s hard to tell them apart these days, was also a classic line.

Talking Points Memo put her whole speech on YouTube.

Talking Points Memo also found this hilarious “bizarro world” video of Republican hack Bill Kristol saying it was a “shockingly minimal endorsement” of Obama.

This is an open thread for your thoughts on Hillary Clinton, Chet Culver, or anyone else who spoke at the convention yesterday.

UPDATE: Here’s an interesting piece by DemFromCT on how Democratic convention viewership is way up compared to 2004.

Also, Dansac tells you what you probably already know: the mainstream media coverage of this convention is horrible. Better to watch all the speeches on C-SPAN or online.

The Rebuild Iowa Advisory Commission will release its final report next week, but the task forces working on various aspects of flood recovery released their recommendations on Monday. Click the link to read the Des Moines Register’s brief summaries of about 30 different recommendations, or click here for a 267-page pdf file containing all the reports from the task forces.

According to the Register, several members of the Rebuild Iowa Commission say a special session of the legislature is warranted to address flood recovery and reconstruction needs. House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy said there is a 50-50 chance of that happening.

I imagine that legislators in tough campaigns wouldn’t want to come to Des Moines for a special session, but these needs are urgent, and I don’t think they can all be put off until January. If there is no special session, I’m afraid the legislature will do little during the 2009 regular session besides consider responses to the flooding.

Whenever legislators meet to evaluate flood relief and reconstruction measures, I hope they will keep in mind the Iowa Fiscal Partnership’s sound advice.

The leadership also needs to make sure environmental considerations do not get short-changed, as they were during the selection of Rebuild Iowa task force members.

The owners of Agriprocessors have invited Governor Chet Culver to visit the Postville meat-packing plant he strongly criticized in his guest editorial for the Sunday Des Moines Register.

The invitation was part of a guest commentary from Agriprocessors, which the Register published on Monday. In that piece, the company’s plant manager, Chaim Abrahams, denied most of the allegations concerning labor and safety violations at the plant.

Culver’s office said the governor will not accept the invitation.

In related news, someone asked Barack Obama about the federal raid at the Agriprocessors plant when he was in Davenport on Monday, and he was quite critical of alleged use of child labor without mentioning Agriprocessors by name. An attorney for Agriprocessors issued an angry response to Obama’s comments. The company’s owners have donated primarily to Republican politicians in the past.

Apparently the new and improved slogan for Barack Obama’s campaign is “The Change We Need.”

I like that a lot better than “Change We Can Believe In.” People believe in religion. I am not looking to “believe in” a candidate, I am looking for a candidate who can deliver what Americans need.

But I suppose I would say that, since John Edwards frequently used “the change we need” on the stump and in debates.

Admittedly, Edwards put a bit of a different spin on the slogan:

As President, I will make sure the voices of all Americans are heard in Washington. If we fight together, we can get the change we need and America will rise.

Similarly,

Where some of the other Democratic candidates use the language of compromise or are in fact taking money from and in support of the corporate interests who are blocking real change, I think the policies I’ve released and the way I’ve spoken out show that I’m more willing to fight to achieve the change we need.

Obama doesn’t position himself as a fighter, which is probably just as well. It wouldn’t suit his temperament.

Another difference is that Edwards didn’t necessarily portray himself as the agent of “the change we need.” He often used the expression in reference to the forces preventing that change, as in this speech on restoring our democracy:

To actually create change, we should start by telling the truth.

Here’s the truth: the system in Washington is broken. Money is corrupting our democracy. Lobbyists and the special interests they represent are pouring millions of dollars into the system, and stopping the change we need dead in its tracks.

I’ll be the first to admit that “the system is broken” was not as appealing a message for many Americans as the more upbeat “we are the change we’ve been waiting for.” But despite my deep disappointment regarding the recent revelations about Edwards, I still feel that his campaign message was more honest and to the point.

That’s water under the bridge. I’ve got no problem with Obama using “The Change We Need.” Heck, I’m even considering sending in $15 to get an Obama-Biden magnet for my car.

David Yepsen wrote a piece in the Des Moines Register warning that it would be perilous for the presidential candidates to ignore rural America at their parties’ nominating conventions:

I’m not talking about pandering here.  Nor am I talking about just the “farm” vote.  I’m talking about the thousands of Americans who live on the countryside and in small towns.  Some are farmers.  Most aren’t.

They face many of the same problems other Americans face – jobs, health care, senior issues and drug abuse.  They are patriotic Americans – many military people come out of these areas – yet because they live in the hinterlands they often feel ignored.

Lots of Americans feel that way these days but that’s especially true in rural parts of the country, many of which are losing population and vitality.

It would be politically smart for each presidential candidate and party speakers to specifically address the concerns of rural Americans in their convention addresses.  Conventions aren’t the place for “farm speeches” or big policy addresses.  But they are the place where messages and themes can be stressed.   Both parties should reach out to rural voters.

Why? Look at the battleground states.  Missouri, Ohio, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania.  All are states with sizeable rural populations.  Yes, some have urban areas in them but the rural vote in each could prove pivotal in tipping their electoral votes.

I agree with Yepsen that rural and small-town voters are a critical swing bloc, and that was one reason I  thought John Edwards would have been a strong general election candidate. I recommend ManfromMiddletown’s piece explaining why “rural voters are the key to the kingdom.”

That said, it strikes me as odd to look to convention speeches for proof of whether the presidential candidates are ignoring rural America.

Let’s examine what Barack Obama and John McCain are doing to reach Americans who do not live in major metropolitan areas.

There is no plan for rural America on the issues page of John McCain’s website. There is only a page labeled “agricultural policies,” which contains nine paragraphs about farming, trade and food policies.

Obama’s website includes a comprehensive Plan to Support Rural Communities. It addresses not only agricultural policies but also economic opportunities, small business development, environmental protection, renewable energy, communications and transportation infrastructure, attracting teachers and health care providers to rural areas, and dealing with the methamphetamine crisis.

But anyone can slap a plan on a website, right? What are the candidates doing to reach out to those small-town voters who feel ignored?

Let’s look at each of the battleground states Yepsen mentions in his column.

Obama had about 40 field offices before the Iowa caucuses and has established 30 offices in Iowa for the general election. His campaign has also organized canvassing in dozens of Iowa towns this summer (see here and here). In August, surrogates for Obama are holding

numerous “rural roundtables” across Iowa to focus on issues affecting small-town and rural residents.

John McCain has six field offices in Iowa, none of them in small towns. I haven’t heard of a lot of campaign activity on his behalf in small towns either.

Obama has already opened 31 field offices in Missouri, which isn’t even one of his campaign’s top red state targets. McCain has six campaign offices in that state.

Let’s turn to Ohio, a state McCain must hold if he is to have any chance of winning 270 electoral votes. McCain has nine campaign offices in Ohio (although there’s no phone or e-mail contact information for these offices on the McCain Ohio website). Obama will have 56 offices supporting his field operation in Ohio, and 44 of those offices are already open.

I don’t consider Minnesota much of a battleground state in light of recent polling. But since Yepsen mentioned it, and McCain may select Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty as his running mate, where do the candidates stand? Obama has 11 field offices in Minnesota, while McCain has seven.

It’s more lopsided in Wisconsin: Obama has 31 field offices, while McCain has six.

Obama built a large campaign organization in Pennsylvania leading up to that state’s primary and has opened 18 field offices there for the general election. The Pennsylvania page of McCain’s website lists a “Pennsylvania & Ohio Regional Office” in Columbus, Ohio and just one local office in Harrisburg. Looks like McCain hardly plans any outreach in that state.

I could go on about Obama’s 35 field offices in Virginia, 22 offices in North Carolina, 26 offices in Indiana and four offices in North Dakota, one of the most rural states.

But you get my point. Not only does Obama have a plan for rural America, he has a campaign presence in dozens of small towns where McCain does not. His staff and volunteers are making contact with thousands of voters who will only hear from McCain through their television sets.

I don’t know how much Obama plans to speak about rural issues on Thursday night, but he certainly can’t be accused of ignoring the concerns of voters outside cities and suburbs.

If you are planning to volunteer for Obama in a small town, take some time to become familiar with the Plan to Support Rural Communities. AlanF has good advice for canvassers in this diary, and Pete Mohanty lays out the reasons that canvassing is an effective campaign tool in this research paper.  

Barack Obama held an invitation-only event in Davenport today and emphasized economic issues:

Obama noted that he was raised by a single mother who sometimes needed food stamps to feed her family. He said he and his wife, Michelle, needed scholarships to attend college.

He said Americans are worried about a souring economy, in which home values are sinking and good jobs are disappearing. He said he would use billions now being spent on the Iraq war to create new jobs rebuilding American highways, adding high-speed railroads and increasing renewable energy sources, such as wind farms.

Two Iowans are among the “everyday Americans” who will address the Democratic convention in Denver. Candi Schmieder from Marengo will speak today, and and Katherine Marcano from Cedar Rapids will speak tomorrow.

Governor Culver will also speak at the convention on Tuesday.

The DemConWatch blog has all the details you need about the convention speakers and agenda.

How much of the convention will you watch? Which speakers are you most anxious to hear?

Feel free to share your closing thoughts about the Olympics in this thread as well.

UPDATE: Hillary Clinton has the quote of the day, referring to the Republican ad trying to stoke resentment that Obama “passed her over”:

“I’m Hillary Clinton, and I do not approve that message.”

SECOND UPDATE: I forgot to mention that sometime between 9:00 and 9:30 pm central time tonight, Senator Tom Harkin is going to introduce former Republican Congressman Jim Leach at the DNC. Should be worth watching! Leach endorsed Obama earlier this month.

I am not a pollster or a statistician, but I have been thinking about some factors that may cause problems with the polling of this year’s presidential election. I welcome input from anyone with expertise in this area.

1. Cell-phone only voters.

I gather from this piece in the New York Times caucus blog that several prominent pollsters now routinely include cellphone samples in their surveys in light of the growing number of Americans who use only or mostly cell-phones.

I also know that a Pew Research Center survey taken in July suggested that Americans who use cell-phones are not that different politically from the population at large. To be more precise, people who use cell-phones most of the time are very much like the electorate at large, while people who exclusively use cell-phones are a bit different, but are also less likely to vote:

The cell-only and cell-mostly respondents in the Pew poll are different demographically from others. Compared with all respondents reached on a landline, both groups are significantly younger, more likely to be male, and less likely to be white. But the cell-only and cell-mostly also are different from one another on many characteristics. Compared with the cell-only, the cell-mostly group is more affluent, better educated, and more likely to be married, to have children, and to own a home.

We know from many years of polling that married people, people with children and home-owners are all groups more likely to vote Republican than the population at large. The Pew study also found that

In the current poll, cell-only respondents are significantly more likely than either the landline respondents or the cell-mostly respondents to support Barack Obama and Democratic candidates for Congress this fall. They also are substantially less likely to be registered to vote and – among registered voters – somewhat less likely to say they are absolutely certain they will vote. Despite their demographic differences with the landline respondents, the cell-mostly group is not significantly different from the landline respondents politically.

Yet as Pew has found in the past, when data from landline and cell phone samples are combined and weighted to match the U.S. population on key demographic measures, the results are similar to those from the landline survey alone.

I get that the phenomenon of cell-phone-only users is probably not introducing large errors in poll findings.

My question is, does the proportion of cell-phone only Americans differ substantially from state to state, or is it a fairly uniform phenomenon across the country? To put it another way, are certain regions of the country, or states with a higher percentage of urban residents, more likely to have larger than average numbers of people who use cell-phones exclusively?

If any swing states have a particularly large number of cell-phone only residents, that would be interesting to know. It could affect the accuracy of polling in that state (depending on the methodology of the polling firm and whether it includes cell-phone samples).

2. Weekend samples for tracking polls.

I was unable to find the archive of Rasmussen’s 2004 presidential tracking poll results, but my memory is that there was a clear pattern whereby Kerry did a little better in the samples taken on weekdays, and Bush gained ground in the samples taken on weekends.

That created the appearance of small movement toward and away from each candidate, with the pattern repeating almost every week in the late summer and fall. I remember reading some speculation that Bush was consistently doing better on the weekends because Democratic-leaning demographic groups are more likely not to be at home on Fridays and Saturdays.

I would like to know whether that is true, and if so whether the major tracking polls (Gallup and Rasmussen) are doing anything to account for this problem.

When we see shifts in tracking polls, we assume voters are reacting to the news of the last few days, but perhaps this is just an illusion created by changes in the pool of people who answer the phone on certain days of the week.

3. Weighting for party ID, race or other factors.

What is considered the best practice in terms of weighting poll results if the sample differs from the demographics of those who voted in the 2004 presidential election?

A Survey USA Virginia poll recently found McCain leading Obama by 48 percent to 47 percent. Commenting on the finding, fladem pointed out that the poll

had 19% of the electorate made up of African Americans.  In 2004 it was 21%.  I have got to believe that African American participation will be higher than 2004.  

I share fladem’s belief, not only because Obama is black, but also because Obama has at least 35 field offices in Virginia, a state Kerry wrote off.

(UPDATE: fladem tells me that there is some evidence that 2004 exit polls overstated the share of the black vote in Virginia.)

We know that registering new voters in groups likely to favor Obama is a crucial part of his campaign strategy. Speaking to David Broder, campaign manager David Plouffe

said that “turnout is the big variable,” and the campaign is devoting an unusually large budget to register scads of new voters and bring them to the polls. “That’s how we win the Floridas and Ohios,” he said, mentioning two states that went narrowly for George W. Bush. “And that’s how we get competitive in the Indianas and Virginias,” two of six or seven states that long have been Republican — but are targets this year.

“That’s why I pay more attention to the registration figures than to the polls I see at this time of year,” Plouffe said. “The polls will change, but we know we need 200,000 new voters to be competitive in Georgia, and now is when we have to get them.”

Should pollsters adjust state poll findings to reflect the Obama campaign’s massive ground game and voter registration drives? How would they do that?

If a polling firm routinely weights for race, should the pollsters assume that the racial breakdown of the electorate will be roughly the same in a given state as it was in 2004? If not, what should they assume?

I have a similar question with respect to party ID. We’ve seen in state after state that the Democratic Party has gained significant ground on the Republican Party in terms of voter registration. In Iowa, there were about 8,000 more Republicans than Democrats in the summer of 2004, but as of June 2008, there were more than 90,000 more Democrats than Republicans. That’s a huge shift in a state where about 1.5 people voted in November 2004.

Are pollsters weighting for party ID, and if so, are they accounting for the big gains in Democratic voter registration since the 2004 or 2006 elections?

4. The disparity in the two campaigns’ ground games.

I know that different pollsters use different screens to separate likely voters from the rest of the sample. One indicator sometimes used is whether the respondent voted in the last presidential election.

But the Obama campaign turned out incredible numbers of first-time voters during the Democratic caucuses and primaries. I laughed at the Des Moines Register’s final pre-caucus poll projecting that 60 percent of caucus-goers would be first-timers, but that turned out to be almost exactly right.

For the general election, the Obama camapign is building a field operation on a scale never seen before.

To further complicate matters, the Obama field operation is enormous in many states where Democrats have not competed in recent presidential races. I mentioned the 35 field offices in Virginia already. Soon there will be 22 field offices open in North Carolina. There are at least 26 Obama offices up and running in Indiana. Even North Dakota has four Obama field offices. Al Gore and John Kerry bypassed all of those states.

Obama’s ground game is going to be much bigger than Kerry’s ground game was even in the swing states Kerry targeted. Nevertheless, it seems reasonable to assume that the increased turnout of groups that skew toward Obama (e.g. blacks, voters under 30) will affect the demographic composition of the electorate more in states where Democrats had nothing going in 2004.

Should pollsters do anything to account for this factor? Could they take this into account even if they wanted to?

I know that some of my questions are unanswerable, but I appreciate any insight readers can provide.

(SECOND UPDATE: Thanks to the reader who wrote me to point out that the factors I mention, while not necessarily reflected in polling, may be reflected in online prediction markets that currently show Obama with a 20 percent greater chance of winning the election than McCain.)

The Democratic National Convention is above all about building support for the Obama-Biden ticket. However, I would like to see some progress toward making a case against John McCain this week as well.

There’s been a lot of hand-wringing on the liberal blogs about Obama’s diminishing lead over McCain this summer. Nate Silver/poblano no longer sees Obama as a clear favorite to win the electoral college, while Chris Bowers still sees Obama as a slight favorite, but in a much weaker position than last month. The McCain campaign has spent tens of millions of dollars on negative advertising this summer, and it does seem to have brought Obama’s numbers down.

Who on the Democratic side is to blame? Some people think Obama’s a brilliant candidate suffering from an incompetent press shop. Slinkerwink is sick and tired of “mealy-mouthed” statements in passive voice from the Obama campaign. But it seems clear to me that Obama sets the tone for his own press shop. If he wanted them to go for the jugular, they would be doing it.

For most of this summer, the Obama campaign has been running a lot of positive television ads nationwide, while running targeted, state-specific negative ads against McCain.

For instance, here is an ad tying McCain to Ralph Reed and Jack Abramoff. It seems like inside baseball until you learn that it’s running only in Atlanta. Two years ago, Reed lost the Republican primary for lieutenant governor in Georgia because of his ties to Abramoff:

This ad started running in Ohio in mid-August, linking McCain to a merger that may cost thousands of jobs:

Obama has also run a tv ad in Nevada about McCain’s support for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste site.

There’s nothing wrong with these ads or making a state-specific case against McCain. However, the Obama campaign has failed to create any broad narrative against McCain comparable to McCain’s narrative against Obama (shallow celebrity candidate who’s not ready to lead).

Things may be changing. Last Thursday the Obama team moved quickly to capitalize on McCain’s inability to state how many houses he owns. Within hours, they had this ad up on national cable television. On Friday, they hit McCain again on the same theme with a second ad portraying him as a “country-club” Republican who can’t even remember how many houses he owns:

These ads are a good start, but we won’t be able to milk the house gaffe forever. We need to use other issues and statements to build on key narratives against McCain: he’s out of touch, he offers the same failed policies as George Bush, he’s a hothead we can’t trust with his finger on the button, he’ll say anything to get elected.

If we are lucky, McCain’s future comments or vice-presidential selection will reinforce one or more of these narratives against him. Two years ago, Virginia Senator George Allen fueled further coverage of himself as racially insensitive when, two weeks after calling a dark-skinned activist “macaca,” he lied about whether he had ever used a racial epithet to refer to black people.

However, the Obama campaign can’t count on McCain doing their work for them. The Democratic nominee doesn’t have to deliver this message himself, but I want surrogates from Joe Biden on down to stay on point.

Another strategy is to use ordinary people to portray McCain as out of touch. This ad that ran in Indiana earlier this month is a good start. It contrast McCain’s statements about the economy being strong with comments from average folks in Indiana, Ohio and Kentucky about tough economic times.

As I watch the proceedings in Denver from afar, one thing I’ll be looking for is a sign that the Obama campaign is building an effective case against McCain.

UPDATE: Just saw over at MyDD that the Obama campaign is launching this new national ad today. It makes fun of McCain for not knowing much about the economy and “singing the same tune” as Bush:

Not sure whether the humor works in this ad–what do you think?

I wouldn’t say my four-year-old son was following the presidential race closely last year, but he was paying enough attention to understand that his parents were voting for John Edwards. Having been in the car a few times when I delivered yard signs, he also understood that an Edwards sign in front of someone’s house meant that person was also voting for Edwards.

In March of this year, my son (by then five years old) asked me whether we were still voting for John Edwards. I explained that not enough people had voted for Edwards, so he couldn’t be the president. We would vote for someone else, probably Barack Obama. He found that a little confusing, but over time it clicked with him that we were supporting Obama for president.

This evening we had a baby-sitter over for a couple of hours. While she was here, I was getting the kids a snack, and my older son asked her who she was voting for. She said, “McCain.”

He followed up with, “But who are you voting for for president?” She said, “McCain.”

Pause. He turns to me: “Mommy, are we voting for Obama?”

“Yes, we’re voting for Obama, but [baby-sitter] is voting for McCain.”

“Oh.” And he went back to eating pretzels.

Governor Chet Culver took the unusual step of publishing a guest editorial in the Sunday Des Moines Register about alleged wrongdoing at the Agriprocessors meat-packing plant in Postville:

The sad events surrounding the [May 12] federal Postville raid, resulting in multiple federal criminal-law convictions of line workers and low-level supervisors – and, notably, not yet of the company’s owners – are strong evidence of a company that has chosen to take advantage of a failed federal immigration system.

[…]

Before the federal raid, Agriprocessors already had a history of sanctions by Iowa’s state regulatory agencies for water pollution, as well as health and safety law violations. Alarming information about working conditions at the Postville plant – including allegations ranging from the use of child labor in prohibited jobs to sexual and physical abuse by supervisors; from the nonpayment of regular and overtime wages to the denial of immediate medical attention for workplace injuries – brought to national attention by the raid forces me to believe that, in contrast to our state’s overall economic-development strategy, this company’s owners have deliberately chosen to take the low road in its business practices.

He said he had directed members of his cabinet to make sure Iowa law is being enforced with Agriprocessors. Furthermore, open positions at Agriprocessors may not be included on state job-listing services “due to the unsafe working conditions at the Postville facility.” In addition, he called on Attorney General Tom Miller “promptly to prosecute all alleged criminal and civil-law violations that are backed by sufficient evidence.”

On Friday the Iowa Division of Labor Services released a statement citing 31 new and repeated safety violations at Agriprocessors’ plant in Postville.

If any Bleeding Heartland readers keep kosher, you may be interested in this piece by Lynda Waddington for Iowa Independent. She describes a “kosher social seal” program, which signifies that food not only meets Jewish ritual requirements but has also been produced in a humane and socially responsible manner.

Meanwhile, John Carlson reports in his latest Des Moines Register column that a local radio personally has written lyrics called “Palau to Postville – a Topical/Tropical Tale.” They are meant to be sung to the tune of the Gilligan’s Island theme. He was inspired by “reports last week that an employment recruiter has been trying to entice people in the Pacific island of Palau to come to work for the [Agriprocessors] plant.”

UPDATE: A spokesman for Agriprocessors says the company is drafting “a forceful response to the governor’s guilty verdict even before trial.”

The same article goes on to say:

Several business and political experts said Culver’s criticism was unusual, but they applauded it.

“I think it’s out of the ordinary. But then again, I think Agriprocessors is a little out of the ordinary, too,” said Mike Ralston, president of the Iowa Association of Business and Industry.

Ralston’s group includes most large Iowa employers, but not Agriprocessors. He said he wouldn’t want Culver to make a habit of publicly criticizing specific businesses. However, he said Agriprocessors’ notoriety has damaged the state’s reputation, making it fair game for the governor’s ire.

Holy cow, is this ad cynical:

I can’t see John McCain gaining a lot of traction with this approach. Joe Biden is not an in-your-face pick for Clinton supporters. Hillary herself said she would consider Biden for any position. This ad is called “Passed Over,” but it’s not as if Obama passed Hillary over for a running mate who was less qualified than she is.

Competitors criticize each other in primaries–big deal. This is nothing worse than what Mitt Romney said about McCain during the Republican competition. This Tuesday night, Hillary Clinton will strongly endorse Barack Obama in front of a packed house in Denver.

What is McCain offering women on any of the issues Hillary championed during the primaries? Zero. And when he picks a down-the-line conservative as his running mate, that will become even more clear.

UPDATE: From CNN:

Clinton’s team immediately dubbed the ad misleading. “Hillary Clinton’s support of Barack Obama is pretty clear,” said Clinton spokeswoman Kathleen Strand. “She has said repeatedly that Barack Obama and she share a commitment to changing the direction of the country, getting us out of Iraq, and expanding access to health care. John McCain doesn’t. It’s interesting how those remarks didn’t make it into his ad.”

Icebergslim brings you pictures and speeches from today’s rally in Springfield.

Hope Reborn brings you lots of clips from journalists and bloggers reacting to Barack Obama’s selection of his running mate: “Glowing Reviews of Vice President Joe Biden: GOP ‘disappointed silence’”

Markos is not happy that Obama “filled a gap, rather than reinforced.”

Paul Rosenberg is disappointed for a different reason, as he explains in “Biden and the Primacy of the Inside Game.”

James L. of Swing State Project looks at what might happen to Biden’s senate seat from Delaware (Biden is up for reelection this year.)

dcprof says “Biden crimps McCain’s VP choice,” and I completely agree.

dday analyzes Ron Fournier’s hit piece for the Associated Press and makes the case that Fournier should recuse himself from covering the presidential campaign or be fired. He makes a strong case, since more and more newspapers rely on wire services like the AP for political coverage, and Fournier considered taking a job with John McCain’s campaign last year.

Steve Benen gives you the gory details on how bad Fournier’s piece is.

Firedoglake also put up an action item on calling for Fournier’s dismissal.

John Deeth’s take on Biden is here. You can find some of Iowa Independent’s greatest hits on the Biden family here.

MoveOn.org is giving away Obama-Biden stickers:

You can get one Obama/Biden sticker for free. For a $3+ donation, we’ll send you 5 stickers. For a $20+ donation, we’ll send 50 stickers. Stickers may take 4-6 weeks to arrive.

If you donate at least $30 to the Obama campaign, you’ll get an official Obama-Biden t-shirt with the campaign logo.

How do you feel about the ticket?

CNN noticed that Secret Service arrived at Joe Biden’s home in Delaware last night, which makes it almost official.

The case for Joe Biden as Barack Obama’s running mate is simple: he’s got a lot of experience at the federal level, particularly in foreign policy. That will reassure voters who may be concerned about Obama’s resume and blunt a major line of attack from John McCain (whose ads have been questioning whether Obama is “ready to lead”).  

But plenty of people in Washington have served in Congress for 20 or 30 years. What makes Biden better than most of them as a running mate? Media scripts about the “gaffe machine” notwithstanding, I submit that Biden’s campaigning ability will be a huge asset to Obama.

I know the stories about Biden putting his foot in his mouth, and I am old enough to remember the Clarence Thomas hearings, when Biden talked too much and didn’t put Thomas on the spot enough.

But he is a much better campaigner than people give him credit for.

Of all the presidential candidates, Biden got the best word of mouth from Iowans who attended his events last year. I don’t think I ever talked to anyone who went to hear him and walked away unimpressed. I wrote about this last summer and again right before the Iowa caucuses.

If you don’t believe me, read accounts by other people who listened to Biden take questions for an hour or more from voters, sometimes just about Iraq and foreign policy but more often about any topic Iowans felt like bringing up.

Biden is not going to need a crash course in federal policy to prepare for the vice-presidential debate, because he knows this stuff inside-out. And despite his reputation for long-windedness, he is able to answer questions in 30 to 60 seconds. In the Democratic candidates’ debates last year, Biden did extremely well despite consistently getting 30 percent to 50 percent less time to speak than the front-runners. He often had the most memorable one-liners from those debates too.

Speaking about the news media’s blackout of long-shot Democratic contenders, Elizabeth Edwards wrote in this op-ed for the New York Times:

And it’s not as if people didn’t want this information. In focus groups that I attended or followed after debates, Joe Biden would regularly be the object of praise and interest: “I want to know more about Senator Biden,” participants would say.

Biden’s speaking style is more aggressive than Obama’s, which will help him be the attack dog Obama needs.

I also agree with Jonathan Singer’s point that Biden’s relative lack of wealth will reinforce the message that the Democratic candidates can relate to ordinary Americans on bread-and-butter economic issues.

Finally, Steve Clemons is absolutely right: Americans are going to love Jill Biden.

Biden wasn’t my number one choice for Obama’s vice president, but he is going to bring a lot to the table.

On Monday I received this release from Becky Greenwald’s campaign:

Waukee, IA – Tom Latham this week continues to use taxpayer dollars to campaign using official Congressional events and mail pieces, instead of his campaign paying for his campaigning.

“Tom Latham has over $800,000 in his campaign account, yet he continues to hold events and send mail pieces paid for by the taxpayers,” said Greenwald Communications Director Erin Seidler. “With just two and a half months to Election Day, taxpayers are paying for Latham to campaign back in the district.”

This week, Tom Latham is holding official Congressional events in New Hampton, Cresco, Mason City, Forest City, Decorah and Waukon. He also sent out a four-page official Congressional mail piece earlier this month. The mail piece is attached to the release.

“Unfortunately, Tom Latham has chosen to campaign using tax dollars over the August recess, and he still refuses to debate with Becky Greenwald,” Seidler continued. “These same taxpayers that are paying for his events are voters, and they deserve to hear from both candidates on the issues.”

The Greenwald Campaign challenged Tom Latham to five debates, including four debates over the August recess. The Latham campaign declined the August recess debates. The Iowa Farmers Union then offered the Latham campaign a debate opportunity at their convention, an event Latham is attending. He also declined this offer.

Latham will be at the Iowa Farmers Union conference in Marshalltown tomorrow (Saturday). Maybe someone there will ask him to explain why he wouldn’t agree to a debate in that setting.

Speaking of which, drop me an e-mail (desmoinesdem AT yahoo.com) if you would be willing to show up in a chicken suit outside a Latham event in the coming weeks. Someone I know has a suit that activists can borrow.

I downloaded the Latham direct-mail piece alluded to above. It’s a clear abuse of the franking privilege, with the look and feel of campaign literature. I will put up the photos and transcribe the text in a future post. Taxpayers should not foot the bill for these glossy mailers.

Senator Chuck Grassley has four town-hall meetings schedule for this Monday:

   * Monday August 25, 9:15-10:15 AM: Buchanan County Courthouse Assembly Room – 210 5th Avenue NE, Independence 50644

   * Monday August 25, 11:15-12:15 AM: Hudson Public Library – 401 5th Street, Hudson 50643

   * Monday August 25, 2-3 PM: New Hampton Public Library Meeting Room – 20 West Spring Street, New Hampton 50659

   * Monday August 25, 4-5 PM: Cresco City Hall Council Chambers – 227 North Elm Street, Cresco 52136

The Sierra Club is encouraging constituents to attend these meetings and send Grassley the message that “drilling won’t lower prices at the pump and it’s time we invest in green solutions that will solve the energy crisis.”

Click here to let the Sierra Club know you plan to attend.

Click the same link to find facts, figures and talking points on why increased offshore oil drilling only benefits oil companies and why Americans need clean energy solutions. The same page contains a word document you can download and print out to take to the town-hall meeting.

If you go, please put up a diary afterwards, like IowaVoter did after he attended a Grassley town-hall meeting in June.

Most people seem to think Obama’s short list is Biden, Bayh and Kaine, but there’s a lot of late buzz about him surprising us all, perhaps with Hillary.

What do you think? I don’t think he will choose Hillary, because his people stupidly made a big point of saying earlier this summer that he didn’t want her on the ticket. If he chooses her now, it looks like he is acknowledging he can’t win without her, and I don’t think he wants to show weakness.

She would be a good choice, though. The right-wing hate machine has been doing a good job of rallying Republicans around McCain. The argument that choosing Hillary would galvanize conservatives against Obama no longer holds water.

UPDATE: Politico says Hillary was never vetted and Congressman Chet Edwards of Texas is on Obama’s short list. Please don’t let Obama be dumb enough to pick him. If he wants a conservative Democrat, it should at least be someone who puts a state in play. Also, Chet Edwards is not seasoned as a communicator on the national stage.

SECOND UPDATE: A friend of a friend of a source of Matt Stoller says Biden’s family is making plans to be in Springfield this Saturday:

http://www.openleft.com/showDi…

THIRD UPDATE: Marc Ambinder picks up on a chartered flight from Chicago’s Midway airport to New Castle, Delaware…possibly going to pick up Biden’s family?

http://marcambinder.theatlanti…

Earlier this year, Mrs. panstreppon wrote several stories on the conservative American Future Fund. You can find them here, here, and here.

This week Jason Hancock wrote a good piece for Iowa Independent about this advocacy group, which is running ads in close Congressional races across the country. This part caught my eye:

Public records show the AFF also has connections to Iowa businessman Bruce Rastetter, who is widely believed to be considering a run for governor in 2010. Rastetter is a regular donor to the Republican Party and founder of Hawkeye Renewables, the fourth largest ethanol producer in the nation. Eric Peterson, business manager at Summit Farms, another of Rastetter’s companies, is listed on documents filed with the Iowa Secretary of State’s office as president, secretary and director of Iowa Future Fund, a conservative nonprofit that essentially morphed into American Future Fund.

The address listed on an AFF ad buy in Minnesota is a post office box used by Nick Ryan, a Des Moines lobbyist who works primarily for Rastetter’s companies and who served as campaign manager for 2006 Republican gubernatorial candidate Jim Nussle. In February, Ryan was acting as spokesman for Hawkeye Renewables when 29,000 gallons of ethanol was accidentally spilled at the company’s Iowa Falls plant.

Within the past year, Rastetter donated $1 million to the Iowa State Fair and $1.75 million to the Iowa State University Agricultural Entrepreneurship Program. That will build up a lot of good will across this state.

This morning, Politico reported that John McCain was unable to say exactly how many houses he and his wife own. Click the link to listen to the audio.

Within hours, Barack Obama’s campaign released this ad to run on cable television:

Also the same day, Obama and a bunch of Democratic surrogates pounded on this gaffe, linking it to McCain’s recent statement that he considers people making less than $5 million annually to be “middle class.” (In reality, an annual family income of $350,000 puts an American in the top 1 percent.)

Meanwhile, the McCain campaign tried to change the subject to the fact that he was a POW in Vietnam, the fact that Obama’s house is pretty big, and Obama’s relationship with Chicago businessman Tony Rezko.

A new conservative 501(c)4 organization has produced a hit piece on Obama to run on television in Ohio and Michigan. Ed Failor Jr., former McCain aide in Iowa and executive vice president of Iowans for Tax Relief, is a leading figure in this new group.

The good news for McCain today was that the Federal Election Commission unanimously decided to let McCain cheat by getting out of accepting public financing for the primaries. McCain used the fact that he’d qualified for public financing to secure loans to his campaign in 2007. He also used his public financing certificate to qualify for the Ohio ballot without collecting signatures. Then, once he won the nomination, he weaseled out of his promise. Adam B has more background and analysis of this FEC ruling.

But other than that, I have to agree with JedReport: It was a really bad day to be John McCain.

UPDATE: Seriously, how many houses does the McCain family own? Politico says eight properties, but ProgressiveAccountability.org says at least ten.

SECOND UPDATE: Karl Rove comes up with creative but not convincing spin: making fun of McCain’s housing gaffe is an attack on Cindy McCain, because the homes were bought with her money. So apparently Obama is now attacking McCain’s wife!