Ramona Cunningham, the former head of the Central Iowa Employment and Training Consortium (CIETC), is standing trial now for her alleged involvement in misspending about $1.5 million at that agency.

Writing in the Des Moines Register on Saturday, Marc Hansen is disturbed by the over-the-top hatred for Cunningham, who after all “did not murder, kidnap, rape or torture anyone.” He quotes an anonymous poster on the Register’s website, who fantasized about selling lottery tickets to see who gets to flip the switch to shock Cunningham, and who gets to turn up the voltage.

Ramona rancor goes beyond the Internet, though.

It seeps into radio talk and water cooler conversation. Like mucky river water, it has risen to an unhealthy level.

Where does it come from? Some of it comes from a pervasive distrust of government and the belief that sneaky public servants can get away with anything.

CEOs who work for the big for-profit companies seem to get more love. I’m not even sure Jeffrey Skilling, the evil Enron genius, faced the same level of public ridicule.

No, he didn’t. Nor do the executives of defense contractors who misspend billions in public money attract the same kind of vitriol.

I’ve got the answer for you, Mr. Hansen. Misogyny is driving the Cunningham hate train.

People aren’t posting their violent fantasies about extracting revenge on the men who had a hand in the wrongdoing at CIETC. If the person standing trial were named Robert Cunningham, this would be just another boring story about public servants embezzling funds that should have gone toward serving the public.

Her alleged sexual affairs with men involved in the CIETC scandal are nothing to be proud of, but no one is talking about selling tickets to watch those men get tortured.

Similarly, politics may be a contact sport, but if this year’s hard-fought Democratic nominating contest had involved two men, I do not think the commentary would have degenerated to the level it did. (More on that in this great post by Natasha Chart.)

Many women who voted for Barack Obama have nonetheless been disturbed by the sometimes violent hatred certain Obama supporters have expressed toward Hillary Clinton.

My limited personal experience on the internet also suggests that a small but vocal group of men quickly ratchet up the hate level when a woman is involved.

Last year I used to comment sometimes at the Cyclone Conservatives blog (as did a few other liberals). This was tame stuff. I would point out, for instance, that calling the Democratic health care proposals “socialized medicine” revealed a lack of understanding about the difference between “socialized medicine” (such as the Veterans Administration), single-payer health care (where the government pays but does not employ doctors and run hospitals), and imposing stronger regulations on private health insurers (which is what most of the Democrats proposed).

One or more anonymous posters at Cyclone Conservatives started attacking me in comment threads as a “skanky ho” and so on, and even posted creepy threats about following my children. It was so out of line that Don McDowell, the publisher of Cyclone Conservatives, shut down comments for a few days and issued a stern warning that threatening comments would not be tolerated. I did not observe that kind of response to the male Democrats who sometimes waded into the comment threads at that blog.

Hansen observed,

A man in eastern Iowa kills his wife, his children and himself and people say nice things about him. That’s fine. I’m sure the man had many good qualities.

During the past year or so, though, I can’t remember anyone saying anything nice about Cunningham, who can’t possibly be the worst person in the world.

No, she’s not the worst person in the world. She’s just the kind of person that certain sick minds love having an excuse to hate.

For the first time that I can remember, I agree with one of Charles Krauthammer’s syndicated columns:

You want more fuel-efficient cars? Don’t regulate. Don’t mandate. Don’t scold. Don’t appeal to the better angels of our nature. Do one thing: Hike the cost of gas until you find the price point.

Unfortunately, instead of hiking the price ourselves by means of a gasoline tax that could be instantly refunded to the American people in the form of lower payroll taxes, we let the Saudis, Venezuelans, Russians and Iranians do the taxing for us — and pocket the money that the tax would have recycled back to the American worker.

This is insanity. For 25 years and with utter futility (starting with “The Oil-Bust Panic,” the New Republic, February 1983), I have been advocating the cure: a U.S. energy tax as a way to curtail consumption and keep the money at home. […]

Want to wean us off oil? Be open and honest. The British are paying $8 a gallon for petrol. Goldman Sachs is predicting we will be paying $6 by next year. Why have the extra $2 (above the current $4) go abroad? Have it go to the U.S. Treasury as a gasoline tax and be recycled back into lower payroll taxes.

Announce a schedule of gas tax hikes of 50 cents every six months for the next two years. And put a tax floor under $4 gasoline, so that as high gas prices transform the U.S. auto fleet, change driving habits and thus hugely reduce U.S. demand — and bring down world crude oil prices — the American consumer and the American economy reap all of the benefit.

Krauthammer came late to this party–I supported Republican presidential candidate John Anderson’s call for a 50-cent hike in the gas tax way back in 1979-1980. (The Republican Party was not yet fully in control of the anti-tax zealots back then.)

Unfortunately, we kept the price of gas artificially low for so many decades that we’ve developed most of our suburban neighborhoods in a way that makes people depend on cars to get around. It will take some time to change our mindset and make our neighborhoods more bike-friendly and accessible by public transit.

I discussed other things individuals and governments can do to reduce our consumption of gas in this post.

Speaking of transportation policy, Democratic State Senator Matt McCoy has an op-ed in Saturday’s Des Moines Register about a bill in Congress that would (in his view) impose unnecessary regulations on the freight rail industry.

Last spring, I donated to John Edwards’ presidential campaign through his page at Act Blue. Yesterday this e-mail arrived in my in-box:

You did it once.

When John Edwards asked for your support, you gave it.

Now we’re asking you to do it again.

Democrats are now in the next round of the fight to win the White House, and we need to work together to guarantee a Democratic victory in November.

We know you care about the Democratic Party, and we want to help you get involved again.

After Barack Obama became the presumptive Democratic nominee on Tuesday night, your fellow Democrats joined the fight for the White House and started fundraising for Obama on ActBlue. On Thursday, the Los Angeles Times cited these new ActBlue pages as “a measure of [Obama’s] power on the Internet.”

Join the legions of Democrats who are already fundraising for Obama.

Become a fundraiser and create a fundraising page.

With the media looking at ActBlue to gauge the strength of Obama’s online support, we need you to get involved now.

Prove that a unified Democratic Party cannot and will not be defeated.

Build a personal fundraising page and ask each of your friends and family members to contribute to the Obama campaign. Build it right here. Ask right now.

From all of us here at ActBlue, thanks.

Erin Hill

Political Director

ActBlue

I’ll be honest I am directing my own giving and fundraising energy this year to several non-profit groups as well as Iowa candidates who need my money more than Obama does.

The Los Angeles Times article linked above notes that Obama already has a cash advantage over John McCain, and that’s before he has tapped many of Hillary Clinton’s major donors.

However, I think this is a great idea for people who are enthusiastic about Obama’s campaign. It probably will generate some good free media for him if thousands of supporters create their own Obama fundraising pages, raising a few hundred bucks from their friends and family.

Also, Act Blue is a great resource for Democratic candidates, so I’m all for supporting their efforts.

If you plan to set up your own fundraising page for Obama, or have already raised money online for candidates, share your expertise in the comments.

“Iowa Blogs Expanding the Majority” is an Act Blue page created by noneed4thneed to raise money for several Democrats running for the Iowa House. Check it out.

Watch this new tv ad for John McCain:

What is he trying to tell us?

Chris Bowers thinks the “McCain campaign is clearly trying to push the age card,” emphasizing his age in order to gain advantage with the huge senior voting bloc in states like Florida and Pennsylvania. Bowers and Marc Ambinder call attention to the visuals in the ad, especially the closing profile photograph, which clearly shows the lines in McCain’s face.

Although McCain may be hoping for a “senior backlash” against Obama, I don’t think that’s what he’s getting at in this ad. Close your eyes and listen to what he is saying, especially the first lines in the ad:

Only a fool or a fraud talks tough or romantically about war. When I was five years old, my father left for war. My grandfather came home from war and died the next day. I was shot down over Vietnam and spent five years as a POW. Some of the friends I served with never came home.

I hate war, and I know how terrible its costs are. I’m running for president to keep the country I love safe. I’m John McCain, and I approved this message.

Gee, who do you think he’s referring to when he says only a fool or a fraud talks tough about war?

The subtext of this ad is clear: McCain is telling us that he understands what war means (unlike Bush), that he has lost family members and close friends in war (unlike Bush), and he is not going to swagger around as president, excited by the prospect of starting more wars.

It sounds as if McCain’s campaign is worried about the public taking him at his word when he said staying in Iraq for 50 to 100 years would be fine by him.

We need to keep reminding Americans that McCain wants permanent U.S. bases in Iraq and has no problem with our troops staying there forever. It also wouldn’t hurt to show clips of his comment from last year: “I’m sorry to tell you, there’s gonna be other wars.”

This You Tube parody from a few months back made the point effectively. Pass it around:

The tag line at the end is classic: McCain 08–Like Hope, but Different.

We all make mistakes, but it’s not every day that someone makes an move which will haunt him for his entire career.

William Meyers confirmed in an interview with Iowa Independent that he plans to run for Congress as an independent. He came in third in Tuesday’s primary in the fourth district with about 13 percent of the vote.

His campaign website has already been reconfigured to promote him as an “independent voice for Iowa”:

The fight isn’t over! A choice between Greenwald and Latham will once again leave the majority of 4th district residents without a voice in Washington, D.C.

The time is long overdue that WE, the majority, have someone just like us representing our best interests instead of the special interests.

Join me after the jump for my take on why this candidacy won’t help anyone, least of all William Meyers.

Justin Krebs has a funny post up at Open Left about a “Bush in Six Words” competition organized by the Salt Lake City chapter of Drinking Liberally.

There have been some great entries already, including, “Married librarian. Never read a book,” and “He came. He saw. He failed.”

Click over and enter your own six-word summary of Bush.

I tried to focus on the positive (which isn’t easy when it comes to Bush): “Coulda been a decent baseball commissioner.”

I don’t watch television, other than the Daily Show and Colbert Report, so I hadn’t realized that John McCain started running ads in Iowa a couple of weeks ago.

Jason Hancock has the story and the YouTubes over at Iowa Independent.

Let him waste his money on tv ads here. Barack Obama had about 40 field offices working this state, while McCain put together virtually no organization during the past year. I am with Mike Glover of the Associated Press; Obama should win this state comfortably in November.

As for McCain’s ads, they focus on domestic issues: tax reform, cheaper energy, affordable and portable health care, and holding “corporate CEOs accountable.”

It shouldn’t be too hard for Obama to make the case that he would do much better on all of those issues than a conservative Republican like McCain.

This is just for fun.

For the first time ever, Republicans are not putting a lot of resources into challenging Senator Tom Harkin. Unless a recount changes the outcome of the GOP primary, Harkin will face little-known Marion businessman Christopher Reed, who has not even raised enough money to file an FEC report. Harkin has more than $3 million to spend on this race. More on Reed here:

http://www.iowaindependent.com…

The Real Sporer thinks the GOP Senate nomination could still go to a state convention, if recounts and challenges push Reed’s percentage of the vote below 35 percent. He won with about 35.3 percent of the vote on Tuesday.

Congressman Bruce Braley will face State Senator Dave Hartsuch in Iowa’s first district. Hartsuch has raised less than $6,000 for his campaign, according to the latest FEC report.

Congressman Dave Loebsack will probably face Mariannette Miller-Meeks in the second district, unless a recount overturns her 109-vote victory in the primary:

http://www.iowaindependent.com…

There may be lasting hard feelings among the Republicans in that district, considering the hard-fought primary and Peter Teahen’s very narrow loss.

Congressman Leonard Boswell will face Republican Kim Schmett in the third district. Schmett has raised about $54,000 so far, according to FEC filings.

Congressman Tom Latham will face Becky Greenwald in the fourth district. She had raised about $56,000 as of the last FEC filing. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has targeted this district in its “red to blue” program. Count on pretty much every major Democratic donor in Iowa to contribute to Greenwald too, with Harkin and Boswell presumably out of danger now. EMILY’s list may also get involved on Greenwald’s behalf.

Congressman Steve King will face Rob Hubler in the fifth district. Hubler has raised over $100,000 for this race, but it’s a steep uphill climb for any Democrat in this district.

Take the poll after the jump: which of these incumbents will win in November with the largest share of the vote?

When you post a comment at Bleeding Heartland, your IP address appears in the comment.

If you sign up for a bunch of new usernames and post multiple comments in the same diary, pretending to be several different people, it will be obvious because the same IP address will appear in your comments purporting to come from different individuals.

Do not use sock puppets to create the impression that a lot of Bleeding Heartland users agree with you. Pick one username and stick with it for the purposes of writing diaries and commenting here.

Sock puppetry is grounds for banning at most blogs, and Bleeding Heartland is no exception.

Note: I rewrote this diary after realizing that I omitted several women candidates. Please read the revised version instead.

Last summer and fall I spent too much time arguing with Hillary Clinton supporters at MyDD who kept bringing up the fact that Iowa and Mississippi are the only two states never to have elected a woman governor or sent a woman to Congress. They were trying to lower expectations for Hillary in Iowa, and possibly also trying to goad Iowa Democrats into supporting her to “prove” that we aren’t sexist.

The truth, of course, is that Iowa Democrats are not to blame for our state’s unfortunate record on electing women. We have twice nominated women for governor (Roxanne Conlin in 1982 and Bonnie Campbell in 1994) and nominated several women for Congress.

In fact, thanks to Becky Greenwald’s victory in the fourth district primary on Tuesday, Iowa Democrats can proudly say that there isn’t a single district in which we have never tried to send a woman to Congress.

In IA-01, we chose Ann Hutchinson, the former mayor of Bettendorf, to run against Jim Nussle in 2002.

In IA-02, Cedar Rapids doctor Julie Thomas ran against Jim Leach in 2002.

Elaine Baxter, then Iowa’s Secretary of State, faced Jim Ross Lightfoot in IA-03 in 1994.

Two women have tried to win IA-05 for the Democrats: Sheila McGuire, who ran against Tom Latham in 1994, and Joyce Schulte, who ran against Steve King in 2004 and 2006.

UPDATE: corncam reminded me that I forgot State Senator Jean Lloyd-Jones, who was the Democratic nominee for Senate against Chuck Grassley in 1992.

I’ve discussed some of the reasons these women all lost before. Iowa has had a lot of long-serving incumbents, who are always difficult to beat. We have had very few open races for Congress, because we keep losing Congressional districts following the census. Of all the Democratic women nominated for Congress in Iowa, only McGuire was running for an open seat, and that was in the heavily Republican fifth district.

We also haven’t experienced some of the circumstances that give an extra boost to a woman candidate. Of the 245 women who have served in Congress, 46 have been widows who directly succeeded their husbands. Happily, we haven’t had any incumbents die in office for many decades.

Nor have our women candidates benefited from other family connections that have helped women get to Congress in some states. Former Kansas Senator Nancy Kassebaum was the daughter of that state’s legendary politician Alf Landon. Representative Stephanie Herseth Sandlin benefited from the fact that many South Dakotans had voted for a Herseth before.

Tuesday was a good day for women candidates here, as John Deeth pointed out in this post. Not only did Greenwald win convincingly in IA-04, Iowa Republicans nominated Mariannette Miller-Meeks for Congress in the second district. (To my knowledge, she is the first Republican woman nominated for Congress in this state.)

Will 2008 be the year Iowa finally leaves Mississippi behind? As challengers facing incumbents, Miller-Meeks and Greenwald go into the general election as underdogs. The partisan lean of the second district (D+7) will be an additional hurdle for Miller-Meeks. Greenwald’s district is evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans (D+0), but she is facing a seven-term incumbent who sits on the House Appropriations Committee.

Tell us what you think in the comments section.

Senator Tom Harkin has announced who made the second cut in his “Building Blue” contest:

Dear [desmoinesdem]:

After two rounds of voting and several thousands of votes cast, I am proud to announce the top 5 House and top 5 Senate candidates that you voted for to receive $2,000 and advance to the final round.

For the Iowa State House you voted for:  Elesha Gayman D-84, Gretchen Lawyer D-36, Eric Palmer D-75, Mark Smith D-43, and Andrew Wenthe D-18.

For the Iowa State Senate you voted for: Jeff Danielson D-10, Swati Dandekar D-18, Mike Gronstal D-50, Tom Rielly D-38, and Sharon Savage D-40.

Congratulations!

Thanks to your strong support for progressive values, each of these outstanding candidates for the Iowa general assembly will receive a $2,000 contribution and are now eligible to win the grand prize of another $5,000 contribution and a fundraising email.

Please click here to make your voice heard by voting for one of these fine progressive candidates in our final round.

Voting for the final round will be open from now through June 17, so please remember to tell your friends and family and help build Iowa blue by voting for your favorite candidate today.

Thank you for supporting all of the candidates that have participated in our Building Blue contest so far and congratulations to our first money winners!

Sincerely,

Senator Tom Harkin

People, please don’t vote for Mike Gronstal. He does not need more cash for his campaign. In fact, I think it would be a nice gesture for him to donate the $2,000 he receives from Harkin to Democrats facing tough Senate races.

A couple of months ago John Deeth wrote this great feature on the battleground races for Iowa House and Senate.

Of the five Senate candidates remaining in Harkin’s contest, only Dandekar and Rielly are also on Deeth’s list of candidates facing close contests. I recommend voting for one of them in the final round.

Of the five House candidates remaining in Harkin’s contest, Gayman, Lawyer and Palmer are all running in battleground districts, according to Deeth. I would choose one of them in the final round.

To vote, go to http://www.tomharkin.com. You can pick one House candidate and one Senate candidate.

The Des Moines Register published a long interview with the three members of the Iowa Utilities Board on Monday.

As you may recall, Democrats John Norris and Krista Tanner recently voted to approve an application to build a new coal-fired power plan near Marshalltown. Republican Darrell Hanson opposed the coal plant.

The whole piece is worth your time, but this was the key passage for me:

Q: For base-load power, it seems as if there aren’t many other options for Iowa than coal right now. Longer term, what’s on the horizon for base-load power?

Tanner: That is why I ultimately ended up voting for [the plant]. Even if all these things end up happening, the most aggressive standards we’re talking about are 30 by 30 [30 percent of electricity generated by renewable sources by 2030], and I’m really concerned about what does that other 70 percent look like. In my opinion, it’s coal or nuclear. [Nuclear is] not without its problems, because it is expensive. I am on the [Iowa] Climate Change Advisory Council, and we put that as an option to study. There’s a lot of resistance to it in the public, more so than coal, even though it’s a lower carbon-generating source.

They are pursuing ways to store the carbon to make coal more viable. I don’t think that will happen in the next five to 10 years. I saw this plant as almost a bridge technology, because it is more efficient. My thought is that if we’re going to have coal, it better be the most efficient plant we can have and have a potential for biomass. While it may be an incremental step in carbon reduction, it’s a step that we can take today.

Norris: At least for the foreseeable future, it’s going to be nuclear or coal. My preference certainly is to reduce greenhouse gases. For the long term, that’s nuclear, but it’s extremely expensive to build right now and an extremely lengthy process to build.

Q: Is there anything the state can do to encourage construction of nuclear plants or is that solely a federal responsibility?

Norris: We’re certainly open to a nuclear application, but still don’t expect it tomorrow. I know Mid-American looked closely at it, but decided costs, the time and the building issues are just prohibitive. Mid-American is a very progressive company in looking at new alternatives. It makes me a little concerned about how the country as a whole is going to solve our base-load problems. Nuclear certainly will help reduce greenhouse-gas emissions.

Some people have suggested to me that John Norris would prefer for the coal plant not to be built, but his comments to the Des Moines Register do not support that speculation. It sounds as if he is resigned to expanding our use of coal because the utilities are not currently pursuing the alternative he prefers, nuclear power.

I believe that renewable energy technologies like wind and solar power can meet more of our electricity needs than IUB members expect.

But we also need to aggressively pursue conservation through government regulations, incentives and public-education campaigns. Conservation measures can dramatically reduce the demand for electricity, and do it quickly.

Residents of Juneau, Alaska cut their electricity use by about 30 percent in a week this spring. Click the link to read about how Brazilians reduced their use of electricity by 20 percent in two months in 2001.

The IUB is not in charge of our state’s energy policy, but maybe its members would not be inclined to approve new coal-fired power plants if they believed that future demand for electricity would be lower than currently projected.

State legislators and officials should take more steps to promote energy efficiency and conservation, as well as increasing our use of wind and solar power.

Here are some easy ways for individuals to reduce their own use of electricity. Simple things like unplugging appliances you are not using can save a lot.

P.S.–I cannot agree with Norris’s implication that expanding nuclear power would be the best way to meet demand for electricity while reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Here is a link to a 74-page report from the Union of Concerned Scientists on nuclear power. But if you’re too busy to read it, here is the key finding in less than 30 words:

The life cycle of nuclear power results in relatively little global warming pollution, but building a new fleet of plants could increase threats to public safety and national security.

A position paper on nuclear power and global warming notes that

Prudence dictates that we develop as many options to reduce global warming emissions as possible, and begin by deploying those that achieve the largest reductions most quickly and with the lowest costs and risk. Nuclear power today does not meet these criteria.

Friends of the Earth makes even stronger arguments against expanding nuclear power as a response to global warming:

It Would Set Back the Fight Against Global Warming: Experts suggest that we must triple the number of nuclear reactors in the U.S. in order to make a dent in global warming.  With a price tag of $5 billion per reactor and a historic construction timeline around 10 years, we’re not likely to see the 200-300 needed new reactors anytime soon.  (We currently have just over 100 reactors and many of those would have to be replaced as they reach retirement age.)  Alternatives, like wind, solar and conservation programs can produce results more quickly and affordably.

That was a long post-script, but we need to get out of the mindset that nuclear power is a solution to global warming, especially since both John McCain and Barack Obama are open to expanding nuclear power in this country.

I will write more about the third district primary later this week, but for now I want to say this: challenging Congressman Leonard Boswell was a worthwhile effort.

This race forced Boswell to work a little harder on constituent service. To cite just one example, Windsor Heights is about to get a new zip code, which probably wouldn’t be happening if not for the primary.

More important, this race forced Boswell to move to a better place on several issues of national importance. If not for Ed Fallon, I doubt Boswell would have signed on to a strong global warming bill, and I think he would still be voting for blank checks to fund the war in Iraq.

If not for Fallon, Boswell would in all likelihood not have given this speech during the House debate over the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in March:

Just a few weeks before that speech, Boswell had publicly advocated for granting retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies in the FISA bill.

Will these changes last? Representative Jane Harman (D, CA-36) has a much better voting record since she faced a progressive primary challenger two years ago.

It is too early to say whether Boswell will follow a similar path, or whether he will revert to his earlier voting patterns. I hope that he will think twice about voting with House Republicans on high-profile issues after all of his campaign’s talk about standing up to George Bush and fighting for Democratic values.

I don’t expect any other Democrat to run against Boswell. Although there is a clear opening for someone to run against him from the left (especially if that someone didn’t support Ralph Nader in 2000), most politically ambitious Democrats don’t like to burn bridges with the whole party establishment.

For what it’s worth, a Boswell voter I know, who is much better connected than I am, thinks there may be a Democrat or two who would consider taking on the incumbent in 2010. If the right kind of candidate laid the groundwork for a vigorous challenge early, perhaps Boswell would retire before the next election cycle.

In any event, I am glad that Fallon gave me and 13,000 other third district Democrats a chance to vote for someone who would better represent progressive values in Congress.

Earlier this year, the state legislature enacted a law changing the rules for school board elections. The goal was to save money by having these elections held every other year, and to have board members elected to four-year terms, rather than three-year terms.

Last night the Des Moines school board voted to deal with the new law by shortening the terms of Patty Link and Jonathan Narcisse by one year. Both were elected to three-year terms in September 2007, but they will now face voters in 2009.

There had been speculation that the board would implement this law by shortening Narcisse’s term to make him face voters in 2009, while lengthening Link’s term so she would be up for re-election in 2011. I thought that was a terrible idea for several reasons, which you can find if you click that link.

Today’s Des Moines Register says Link herself

proposed the idea to shorten both their terms, even though some supporters wanted her to claim four years, she said. “I think it’s the fairest way to do it,” Link said. “It’s confusing to play with the years. I don’t want to have the perception that one board member is favored over another.”

That is exactly right. Narcisse is somewhat of an outsider on the current board, but he was elected by people who wanted an outspoken critic of past school boards and district administrators to represent them.

Narcisse was not happy about last night’s vote. He criticized the “disenfranchisement” of voters who elected him and Link to three-year terms, but it would have sent a far worse message to treat board members unequally. Now that school board elections are to be held only in odd-numbered years, it simply isn’t an option for Narcisse and Link to face the voters in 2010 after three years on the board.

The Des Moines school board also voted 6-1 (with Link opposed) to challenge the new state law in court. I doubt they will be successful, though:

Many groups have been opposed to this new law, including the Iowa Association of School Boards, which has said it wants to get it repealed. The law was advertised this year as a way to cut election costs.

The [Des Moines] district’s legal counsel, Beth Nigut, advised the board that there is a precedent from 1907 that allows the legislature to shorten or even end the terms of elected officials, and warned that a lawsuit’s outcome is uncertain. Board members stated they want to pursue other angles, however, such as the short time frame in which they are expected to make a decision.

The law was passed just in April and all districts must have plans in place by Aug. 1 regarding how to transition to equal number of seats coming up for election every two years.

That doesn’t sound like an unreasonable time frame to me. Most school boards meet twice a month. Three months seems adequate to hold hearings and adopt a final decision on implementing the law.

The past few days have been intense for candidates and their advocates, and unfortunately we’ve run into some problems with how comments at Bleeding Heartland are rated.

I take part of the blame for not posting clear guidelines on this subject before now.

You don’t have to rate comments (my personal style is to be sparing in handing out ratings), but if you do, you can give five possible ratings.

“4” is for excellent. That means the comment has valuable insight, original information or analysis, and makes a strong contribution to dialogue at Bleeding Heartland.

“3” is for good. You might use this if you largely agree with someone’s comment, but not with every point he or she makes.

“2” is for marginal. You might use this if you strongly disagree with the content of someone’s comment. Also, a 2 rating could be a “shot across the bow” to warn someone that the line of argument in the comment didn’t do much to advance dialogue here, or comes close to crossing a line.

“1” is for unproductive. If you not only strongly disagree with a comment, but feel that it detracts from the atmosphere here (for instance, because it is disrespectful or contains ad hominem attacks), you might give it a 1.

“0” is for troll. If more than one user gives a comment a zero, it will be hidden so that some Bleeding Heartland readers cannot see it.

Never use a zero rating to express disagreement with the argument someone is making. That is ratings abuse, and if you do it repeatedly, Bleeding Heartland administrators will either take away your ability to rate comments or potentially ban you from posting here.

A zero rating should be reserved for extreme circumstances, when the comment deserves to be hidden. For instance, if someone is impersonating someone else by choosing a different real person’s name as a screen name (for instance, if I signed up as “Leonard Boswell” and posted ridiculous comments pretending to come from him).

Comments that use racist or otherwise bigoted language also would merit a zero.

Trying to expose the real names of Bleeding Heartland users who choose to write under screen names will not be tolerated either.

Slanderous, ad hominem attacks could get a zero rating too, but be careful not to accuse other posters of slander just because you disagree with their point of view or interpretation of events.  

I have not seen estimates for the percentages of registered voters in each party who turned out today, but I have a few thoughts on turnout based on the election results.

The campaigns of Congressman Leonard Boswell and Ed Fallon mobilized a lot of voters in the third district. Boswell received just over 20,000 votes, and Fallon received about 13,000. Turnout of 33,000 in this district is not bad at all for a Congressional primary. By way of comparison, 38,000 Democrats in the third district cast votes in the 2006 gubernatorial primary.

In the fourth district Congressional primary, turnout was much lower. It looks like fewer than 18,000 people cast votes on the Democratic side. Becky Greenwald is headed to victory with about 51 percent of the vote, which is impressive in a four-way race. But she has a lot of work ahead of her, because it does not appear that fourth district Democrats were highly energized about choosing an opponent for Tom Latham.

Naturally, it is easier to mobilize voters in the third district, which has only 12 counties and most of the residents concentrated in Polk County. Also, one would expect six-term Congressman Boswell and former state representative and gubernatorial candidate Fallon to have an easier time turning out voters, because of past campaigns they have run.

The fourth Congressional district spans 28 counties over a huge geographical area. In addition, none of the Democratic candidates running against Latham had held elective office before. They didn’t start their campaigns with large numbers of people having already voted for them at least once, the way Boswell and Fallon did.

I am not trying to take away from Greenwald’s achievement. I only want to point out that Democrats will need to engage many more fourth district voters if we are to have any chance of unseating Latham.

By the way, in the second district, Republican turnout in the three-way race to challenge Congressman Dave Loebsack was just under 17,000 votes. I do not expect Mariannette Miller-Meeks to mount a strong challenge to Loebsack.

Earlier today, TheRealWorld posted this in a comment:

The obama people and the IDP are dreading the fact that fallon might win this because of the massive amounts of problems that would cause to have a congressional candidate that cannot buy into the coordinated campaign and would cause the RNCCC to just spend money widely here. I know the obama people arent breaking for him in the numbers he needs because the obama people have been keeping there people in check and the boswell people have gone after them hard. they may be pissed about the clinton thing but since that is over now hopefully they wont hold it against him. Especially since they need the boswell cross over of veterans and republicans for obama to win this district and state in the general

Obama supporters, were you hearing from Obama precinct captains, delegates, or volunteers that Fallon winning the primary would make it harder for Obama to carry Iowa?

Was there any organized effort by people affiliated with the Obama campaign to steer rank and file supporters toward Boswell for this reason?

Were you hearing this argument from Boswell field organizers or volunteers?

An Obama precinct captain I met recently told me that many of the Obama delegates at the third distict convention were supporting Boswell because he is “good enough.” She did not mention the points raised by TheRealWorld, though.

The big news of the day is that Barack Obama has picked up enough superdelegates, along with delegates pledged to John Edwards, to clinch the presidential nomination.

I’ve been trying to tell people at Daily Kos for months that the superdelegates would bring down the curtain after all the states had voted.

I think the extended primary season was on balance excellent for the Democratic Party, and I couldn’t disagree more with those who have been badgering Hillary Clinton to drop out for the past two or three months.

Early returns from South Dakota indicate that Hillary will win that primary, by the way.

Polls close soon in Iowa, and I will update this diary when I have some results to report.

UPDATE: With 46 percent of precincts reporting Boswell leads Fallon 56 percent to 44 percent. Not clear whether absentee ballots have already been counted. I would expect Boswell to have an edge there. Also not clear whether the big Des Moines precincts have reported.

UPDATE 2: Not looking good for Fallon–Boswell leads 57-43 with 60 percent of precincts reporting.

The GOP Senate candidates are bunched closely together with 25 percent of precincts reporting.

Still only 4 percent of precincts reporting in IA-04. Greenwald leads, but it’s way too early.

Peter Teahen is ahead in the GOP primary in IA-02 wih 30 percent of precincts reporting.

UPDATE 3: The Des Moines Register has called the IA-03 primary for Boswell. He leads 60-40 with 90 percent of precincts reporting.

Becky Greenwald has a huge lead in IA-04, with 52.6 percent of the vote after 59 percent of precincts reported. Kurt Meyer is in second place with 26.6 percent; William Meyers has 12.1 percent, and Kevin Miskell has 8.7 percent.

Mariannette Miller-Meeks has a small lead over Peter Teahen, 44.3 percent to 42.3 percent with 82 percent of precincts reporting.

The GOP Senate race is very close with 79 percent of precincts reporting: Christopher Reed has 35.4 percent, George Eichhorn has 34.9 percent.

UPDATE 4: There may need to be a recount in IA-02. With 98 percent of precincts reporting, Miller-Meeks leads Teahen by fewer than 100 votes, 43.5 percent to 43.0 percent.

The GOP Senate primary is also a squeaker, with fewer than 200 votes separating reed and Eichhorn.

Boswell leads Fallon 61-29 with 98 percent reporting.

Greenwald leads Meyer 51-27 with 84 percent reporting.

All the Democratic House incumbents who had primary challengers held on to their seats.

Jerry Sullivan won the primary in House district 59 with 78 percent of the vote despite the robocalls against him that I wrote about last night.

FINAL UPDATE: It looks like Obama won the Montana primary and Clinton won the South Dakota primary.

I didn’t see Obama’s speech to a huge crowd in the Twin Cities, but I am amused that John McCain stupidly scheduled a speech for this evening. His speech got cut off so the tv networks could devote coverage to the big story (Obama winning the nomination) and Obama’s big speech (which was apparently great).

In IA-03, Boswell beat Fallon by 61-39 percent with all the precincts in. That is comparable to Representative Jane Harman’s victory over Marcy Winograd in a California Congressional district two years ago. Harman’s voting record reportedly improved after that primary. Let’s hope we can expect the same from Boswell.

Final results from the IA-04 primary: Greenwald 50.7 percent, Meyer 27.6 percent, Meyers 13.2 percent, Miskell 8.4 percent.

Christopher Reed won the GOP Senate primary by about 400 votes out of about 70,000 votes cast. He had 35.3 percent of the vote, George Eichhorn had 34.7 percent, and Steve Rathje had 29.9 percent.

IA-02 race called for Miller-Meeks. She won by a margin of 109 votes out of nearly 17,000 votes cast.

Nothing on the Des Moines Register’s site about recounts in the GOP Senate primary or Congressional primary in IA-02.

Today is the last day to select one Iowa House candidate and one Iowa Senate candidate you’d like to see Harkin give money to this year:

http://www.tomharkin.com/

Bleeding Heartland users advocated for various candidates in this thread:

http://www.bleedingheartland.c…

The gang at Blue Oregon set up this fun poll where you can rank any or all of 32 possible vice-presidential picks for Obama:

http://www.demochoice.org/dcba…

You rank the candidates you support, and you do not have to choose all 32 possibilities. I only voted for my top nine choices.

For an explanation of how instant-runoff voting works, click here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I…

Use this as an open thread to advocate for the VP candidate(s) of your choice.

I think Obama needs to choose someone who will help him 1) win the general, and 2) unite the party. In my opinion, that means either someone who helps in in polls across the board, someone from a crucial swing state, a Clinton loyalist, or Hillary Clinton herself.

Speaking of which, Matt Stoller has made a strong case for Wes Clark as the ideal VP for Obama.