I don’t think Barack Obama will pick John Edwards as a running mate (the endorsement came too late for that), and I would probably rather see Edwards in a cabinet position with real authority than as a ribbon-cutter for Obama.

However, Open Left contributor Paul Rosenberg disagrees and has written three lengthy diaries making the case for Edwards as the best possible pick for Obama.

If you are interested, here are the links to the three diaries. Rosenberg explains his main thesis here:

This is not an “Edwards for VP” candidate diary series.  But it is a very candid look at why Edwards makes a strong choice, the better to discuss the underlying forces at play.  The foundations of my argument comes from two different diaries Chris wrote, years apart.  The first-discuissed in this diary-concerns the need for connecting Democratic Party liberalism with a more non-idelogical reform tradition.  The second-discussed in the next diary-concerns the logic a reinforcing VP pick.  After discussing those two diaries, I’ll review some recent polling data that shows Edwards as a very strong VP pick for Obama.

The Deep Logic of Edwards for VP–Part 1

Part 1 goes over “the need to supplement the Democratic base with an appeal to those who were non-ideological in the traditional liberal/conservative sense, but rather, were ideologically committed to reforming government to make it more responsive to the people.”

The Deep Logic of Edwards for VP–Part 2

The main argument of part 2 is that Edwards would be the best person to “reinforce” the ticket (as opposed to balancing the ticket).

The Deep Logic of Edwards for VP–Part 3

Part 3 has a lot of polling data to support Rosenberg’s argument.

I shall never forget the sacrifices of the men and women who served before me, with me, or after me.  May God rest your souls.

For some reason, I occasionally receive mass mailings from the Iowa Republican Party. Usually I toss these in the recycling bin without reading them, but for some reason I opened the latest one, which arrived this week.

It was a letter from state chairman Stew Iverson, who urged me to make a donation and thereby become an “official Member” of the party. He even enclosed a personalized membership card for me.

I won’t bother transcribing the whole letter, because it was the usual GOP language about big, bad, liberal Democrats and their social programs, “bloated budgets” and higher taxes that will take away your hard-earned money.

One line jumped out at me. It is underlined in the letter, but I can’t figure out how to make it underlined here:

It’s time to join together and stop the Democrats from gaining more seats in 2008!

Is that the best they’re hoping for?

Can’t they even pretend to their own supporters that the goal is retaking the Iowa House and Senate for the GOP? There is nothing in the letter suggesting that my donation will help put Republicans back in power. There is nothing about the positive agenda the Republicans would enact if they regained control of the legislature. It is all about trying to limit the damage Democrats can do.

In case you had any doubts, know that Iowa Republicans are still downbeat about their election prospects. It seems like not much has changed since a prominent Republican told the Des Moines Register in January:

“We’ll be lucky with anything we get this year,” said Steve Roberts, a Republican National Committee member from Des Moines. “I don’t think there are a lot of people with high expectations this year. It’s a long road back for us this time.”

Don’t be complacent. Get involved in a statehouse race. If your district is not competitive, volunteer for a Democrat in another district that is up for grabs, or at least donate to one or more candidates you believe in.

I’ll be helping Jerry Sullivan take House district 59 for the Democrats. Republicans have represented my district since before I was born, and it’s time for that to change.  

Reflecting on Ben Smith’s post at Politico about early Obama supporters, it occurred to me that he forgot John and Jackie Norris, and I should write something about that.

Bleeding Heartland user RF was on the same wavelength. After reading my post last night, he put up this comment:

On the list of prominent early Obama supporters, I think John Norris should be there instead of Gordon.  Like you pointed out, Gordon was not onboard that early.  I saw Norris at various Obama meetings and at his IA headquarters very early.  With his background, I also suspect his input had more to do with Obama’s success than anything Gordon did.

John Norris ran John Kerry’s Iowa operation during the last presidential campaign. As a precinct captain for Kerry, I can confirm that Norris did a lot to hold that campaign together during several months of one discouraging poll after another. He made sure his field organizers kept doing their jobs and lining up precinct captains, and they made sure precinct captains didn’t panic and kept lining up supporters.

John Norris initially backed Tom Vilsack for president. He had worked on Governor Vilsack’s staff and been appointed by Vilsack to serve on the Iowa Utilities Board.

The day Vilsack ended his presidential campaign, Jerome Armstrong observed, “Whoever lands John Norris will be the winner from Vilsack dropping out.”

Norris did not take an official position with the Obama campaign, but his wife Jackie Norris joined the Obama staff in Iowa very soon after Vilsack left the race.

As RF noted, John Norris’s input must have been quite helpful to Obama’s team as they set up their campaign operation in Iowa.

In addition, I am certain that having the Norrises on board helped Obama win over many Iowans who had caucused for Kerry in 2004.

On at least one occasion, I remember a field organizer for Obama telling me that John Norris was supporting Obama after she learned that I had been a precinct captain for Kerry.

I remember talking with an active Democratic volunteer from a neighboring precinct sometime last summer. She also had supported Kerry in 2004 and was undecided at the time we talked. She mentioned that it made a big impression on her that Jackie Norris quit her job to go work for Obama.

I haven’t seen that woman in a while and don’t know which candidate she eventually picked. But I wouldn’t be surprised if Obama field organizers were advised to bring up the Norrises whenever they encountered former Kerry supporters.

Ben Smith mentioned that the people who backed Obama early in the campaign “could be expected to have real access, and in some cases major jobs, in an Obama White House.”

Whether or not Obama chooses John or Jackie Norris for a job in his administration, Obama’s support would be a huge asset to John Norris if he runs for any political office. Norris ran for Congress against Tom Latham in 2002, and I expect he will seek some elective state or federal office in the future.  

With potential backing from Obama, Vilsack (who I doubt would hold a grudge over Norris not supporting Hillary Clinton) and labor unions who appreciated his deciding vote in favor of a new coal-fired power plant near Marshalltown, Norris would have a leg up on rivals in a Democratic primary.

The environmental community would probably not support Norris in a primary, but I’m sorry to say that I am not aware of any Iowa Democrat whose political career suffered from not protecting the environment enough.  

The pundit class and blogosphere are in full-blown hyperventilation mode because Hillary Clinton alluded to the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy in June 1968.

True to their habit of ascribing the most evil motives possible to everything Hillary does, some people are assuming that she made the comment because of an expectation or “morbid fantasy” that something terrible will happen to Barack Obama.

Take a step back and look at what she said in her meeting with the Sioux Falls Argus Leader editorial board:

HRC: … You know, I have been willing to do all of that during the entire process, and people have been trying to push me out of this ever since —

Q: Why?

HRC: I don’t know, I don’t know.  I find it curious, because it is unheard of in history.  I don’t understand it.  And you know, between my opponent and his camp and some in the media, there has been this urgency to end this.  And, you know, historically that makes no sense.  So, I find it a bit of a mystery.

Q: You don’t buy the party unity argument?

HRC: I don’t.  Because, again, I’ve been around long enough – you know, my husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June.  Right?  We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California.  You know, I just – I don’t understand it, and, you know, there’s a lot of speculation about why it is.  But —

Q: What’s your speculation?

HRC: You know, I don’t know.  I find it curious.  And I don’t want to attribute motives or strategies to people who I don’t really know …

Though I wouldn’t have recommended using that analogy, it seems clear to me that Hillary was referring to the fact that RFK was still campaigning (not having wrapped up the nomination) in June at the time of his assassination.

Many bloggers, including Iowa’s own John Deeth, are mad that Hillary didn’t reference different historical events, such as the Democratic nominating contest in 1972 or the Republican one in 1976. Deeth is convinced that she must have been voicing “a subconscious wish to whack a rival.”

None of us are mind-readers. It’s a sad day when so many Democrats are quick to assume the worst about the Clintons. If I want to hear why everything Hillary does reflects her malicious desires, I can turn on some right-wing radio show.  

And for those who claim Hillary is too smart and politically astute to make any comment by accident, think about it: Does it make sense that Hillary would expect to gain political advantage from mentioning RFK’s assassination?

Isn’t it obvious to anyone who has been watching this campaign that such a comment would cause a firestorm of outrage that would benefit Obama politically?

I am giving Clinton the benefit of the doubt. While explaining that it is historically not unusual for a presidential campaign to go on until the summer, she used unfortunate words. We all make mistakes.

Frankly, I am more bothered by the recent comments of Hillary’s chief fundraising official, businessman Hassan Nemazee:

“There’s a desire on the part of the party to come together under any circumstances, and Hillary and her supporters will do everything in their power to help Obama win, should he become the nominee, whether or not she’s on the ticket,” Nemazee said to me this morning.

“But there’s a risk that if she isn’t invited on the ticket, Hillary’s political and financial supporters may not feel compelled to be as integrated and involved in the Obama campaign in order to provide the maximum support that he’ll need to prevail in November.”

To paraphrase Fat Albert, this guy is like school in the summertime–no class.

On one level, he is just stating the obvious: Hillary’s supporters will be more active in Obama’s campaign if she is on the ticket, the same way John Edwards’ supporters became more enthusiastic about John Kerry.

But I don’t care for the thinly-veiled threat to withhold financial support from Obama. This was no slip of the tongue. This was a clear hint that Obama will pay a price if he doesn’t pick Clinton for vice-president.

The Clinton camp should not be making this argument. They can provide other reasons for choosing Hillary as VP without making threats.

I also agree with TomP, who wrote yesterday that this kind of pressure is counter-productive if your goal is to get Obama to pick Hillary:

Hillary Clinton would not be my first choice for VP, but that is up to Obama.  The problem she is creating now, however, is that attempts to blackmail Obama in to giving her the VP nomination, which is how I read Mr.  Nemazee’s comments, push Obama into a position where he must refuse her.

If Clinton threats pushed Obama into offering her the VP, he could easily be attacked as “weak” and unable to stand up to Hillary.  Think how McCain and his surrogates would use that.

For the record, I wouldn’t advise Obama to offer Hillary the VP slot, and I wouldn’t advise Hillary to accept it if offered.  

Ben Smith put up a post about Barack Obama’s prominent early supporters, who came on board when he was seen as having little chance of beating Hillary Clinton. Here is his list:

Senator Richard Durbin

Former Majority Leader Tom Daschle

Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller

Oprah Winfrey

Iowa Treasurer Mike Fitzgerald

Former Iowa Democratic Party Chairman Gordon Fischer

Ted Sorensen

Virginia Governor Tim Kaine

Alabama Rep. Artur Davis

New Hampshire Rep. Paul Hodes

It’s easy to forget now that Gordon Fischer was on the fence between Clinton and Obama for some time last summer. He told the story of how Obama’s campaign hooked him in an interview with New Yorker journalist Ryan Lizza:

Obama, who had sometimes seemed to eschew the details of campaigning which Clinton appears to revel in, has become more enmeshed in the state’s idiosyncratic politics. Consider the conquest of Gordon Fischer, a former chairman of the Iowa Democratic Party. Every campaign wanted Fischer’s endorsement, but the Obama campaign pursued him relentlessly. At a recent lunch at the Des Moines Embassy Club, a restaurant on the forty-first floor of the tallest building in the state, Fischer explained how Obama’s Iowa operatives used his closest friends to persuade him to back Obama. One, Lola Velázquez-Aguilú, managed to decorate part of Fischer’s house with photographs of Obama that featured thought bubbles asking for Fischer’s endorsement. (“Has anyone told you how great you look today?” an image of Obama taped to a mirror said. “So, are you ready to sign a supporter card?”) When Obama staffers learned that the late Illinois senator Paul Simon was a hero of Fischer’s, they asked Simon’s son-in-law, Perry Knop, to call Fischer and make the case for Obama. At one point, Obama himself invited Fischer onto his campaign bus and told him that he had to stay aboard until he agreed to an endorsement. When Fischer insisted that he had to make the decision with his wife, Monica, Obama demanded Monica’s cell-phone number, and he called her at once. “Monica, this is Barack Obama,” he said when her voice mail came on. “I’m with your husband here, and I’m trying to go ahead and close the deal for him to support my candidacy. . . . Discuss it over with your man. Hopefully we can have you on board.” The Fischers were sufficiently impressed to endorse him, two weeks later. “I think the Iowa campaign has been run better than the national campaign,” Fischer said.

When I read Lizza’s article last November, I showed that passage to my husband, who remarked, “That’s actually a really good argument for scrapping the caucuses.” I’m sure that wasn’t Fischer’s intention, though!

But I digress.

Ben Smith’s post reminded me that I’ve been meaning to put up a poll about which candidate had the best celebrity supporters.

For the purposes of this diary, I am focusing on celebrities who publicly endorsed or campaigned for a candidate. Lists of famous donors can be deceiving, since many rich and famous people give large sums to multiple candidates:

Actor Michael Douglas, for example, has contributed to five current and former Democratic presidential candidates. As of Sept. 30, the latest reports available, he had donated the maximum $4,600 $2,300 for the primary campaign and $2,300 for the general election to Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama, Bill Richardson and Chris Dodd, and $1,500 to Dennis Kucinich.

[…]

Another serial donor in the current election is Paul Newman, who gave the maximum contribution to Obama, Clinton, and Dodd, and $2,300 to Richardson.

Some donors have spread the wealth around but have decided to back one candidate. Barbra Streisand gave $2,300 each to Clinton, Edwards and Obama, and $1,000 to Dodd, but recently endorsed Clinton for president.

[…]

Steven Spielberg and Rob Reiner are two other celebrities who donated to multiple presidential candidates four a piece before settling on Clinton. Reiner also shot a spoof video for Clinton’s Web site.

Actress Mary Steenburgen gave money to both Edwards and Clinton, but has backed Clinton, a friend for three decades, from the get-go. Steenburgen, a native of Newport, Ark., met the Clintons when Bill Clinton was in his first term as governor of Arkansas.

Last month the Huffington Post published this piece on the top ten celebrities for Clinton and Obama. Here is their list for Obama:

1. Oprah

2. will.i.am

3. the Kennedy women (Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg and Maria Shriver)

4. Ben Affleck

5. George Clooney

6. Scarlett Johansson

7. Samuel L. Jackson

8. Chris Rock

9. Robert De Niro

10. Jennifer Aniston

At least I have heard of these people. When I first saw will.i.am’s “Yes We Can” video, I swear that the only person I recognized was Kareem Abdul Jabbar.

HuffPo’s list of top ten Clinton supporters:

1. Ellen DeGeneres

2. Elton John

3. Ted Danson and Mary Steenburgen

4. Jack Nicholson

5. Natalie Portman

6. Mario Lavandeira (I never heard of him, but apparently he is the celebrity blogger Perez Hilton)

7. America Ferrera (star of “Ugly Betty”)

8. Magic Johnson

9. Barbra Streisand

10. Eva Longoria Parker (star of “Desperate Housewives”)

The list of other famous people who have donated to Obama or Clinton is of course very long. I know that Bruce Springsteen and Tom Hanks are also public Obama supporters. If I’ve left out celebrities who played an important public role in either candidate’s campaign, please let me know in the comments.

John Edwards: A bunch of big Hollywood names donated to his campaign, but most of them did not play any public role, and many also gave money to other Democratic candidates.

I was fortunate enough to see one of the mini-concerts Bonnie Raitt and Jackson Browne did for Edwards in Iowa last November. They also campaigned for him in New Hampshire. Tim Robbins came to early-voting states to stump for Edwards as well. I heard from a friend who saw Robbins in Des Moines that his first comment to the crowd was, “I’m not Oprah.” Ben “Cooter” Jones, former Congressman and star of the tv show “Dukes of Hazzard,” also campaigned for Edwards in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.

UPDATE: I can’t believe I forgot that Madeleine Stowe, Kevin Bacon, and James Denton (of “Desperate Housewives” fame) also came to Iowa to help out Edwards. In addition, Danny Glover and Harry Belafonte endorsed Edwards. Jon Mellencamp not only supported Edwards, he also invited him on stage during a concert in Des Moines.

Bill Richardson: Again, a lot of big Hollywood names maxed out to his campaign, but most of them didn’t endorse him. The exception was Martin Sheen, who came to Iowa in December to go out on the stump with Richardson. Sheen endorsed Obama after Richardson dropped out.

Joe Biden: The famous people listed here as his donors mostly contributed to other candidates as well. I cannot recall any celebrities coming to Iowa to campaign with Biden, but please correct me in the comments if I am wrong. He was often accompanied by family members, especially his sons Beau and Hunter. (UPDATE: I forgot that Richard Schiff, who played Toby the communications guy on “The West Wing,” came to Iowa to campaign with Biden.)

Chris Dodd: Many of the famous people who donated to his campaign also donated to other candidates. However, it is worth mentioning that singer-songwriter Paul Simon campaigned with Dodd in Iowa last July, and former Democratic Senatorial candidate Ned Lamont campaigned with Dodd in Iowa last November.

Dennis Kucinich: Viggo Mortensen came to New Hampshire to campaign with Kucinich after the candidate was left out of the last presidential debate before that state’s primary. Apparently Sean Penn gave Kucinich money during the 2004 campaign.

I am not aware of any celebrity supporters of Mike Gravel.

Click “there’s more” to take the poll after the jump.

My family will be taking some day trips and overnight trips around Iowa this summer, and we prefer to eat at good, locally-owned restaurants, if possible.

Please post a comment if you can recommend any place, and mention significant details such as what kind of food they serve, if it is kid-friendly, if they source food locally, and so on.

Here are some examples:

The Waveland Cafe is a classic diner in Des Moines on University Avenue near Polk Blvd. They serve breakfast all day, and it’s a kid-friendly place, but it gets crowded for lunch, especially on weekends.

India Star on 56th and Douglas in Des Moines is our favorite Indian restaurant in the area. The food is classic north Indian and not very spicy. There are plenty of options for vegetarians. If you want to eat there with small kids, try the lunch buffet, because otherwise it can be a long wait for your food.

The Phoenix Cafe in Grinnell serves great food and sources many ingredients from local farmers.

The Red Avocado in Iowa City also includes a lot of locally-sourced food on its vegetarian menu.

Where are some other good, locally-owned places to eat in Iowa?

Congressman Leonard Boswell’s campaign finally released some results from its internal polling today. An e-mail from campaign manager Scott Ourth said that according to a survey by Anzalone Liszt Research, 65 percent of likely primary voters would vote for Boswell.

If Boswell did win 65 percent of the vote on June 3, he would do slightly better than 8-year incumbent Jane Harman did in the 2006 primary to represent California’s 36th district. Harman, who like Boswell was backed by pretty much the whole state Democratic Party establishment, defeated peace activist Marcy Winograd by 62.4 percent to 37.5 percent.

The e-mail from the Boswell campaign did not contain details such as:

-which days the poll was in the field

-the number of respondents surveyed

-what criteria were used to code a respondent as a likely voter

-the pollster’s projected turnout for June 3

-support for the candidates among men vs. women and in various age groups

-the percent for Ed Fallon versus undecided.

I have asked for more information about the poll and will update this post if I receive answers from the Boswell campaign.

It mentioned that 63 percent of those who attended the Iowa caucuses in January said they would vote for Boswell if the election were held today–though it is not clear from the e-mail whether those who attended caucuses were automatically included in the likely voter pool for the primary.

About 58,000 people in Iowa’s third district attended Democratic caucuses on January 3. Only about 38,000 people in the third district voted in the 2006 Democratic gubernatorial primary.

I have not heard any projections from the Boswell campaign about how many people they expect to turn out on June 3.

Ourth’s e-mail alludes to mailing in early ballots. Presumably there has been an extensive effort to get supporters to return absentee ballots. Fallon’s campaign has also been urging supporters to vote early.

The e-mail also boasts that Boswell doubled Fallon’s fundraising during the latest reporting period, from April 1 to May 14. It links to this report from the Des Moines Register:

Federal Election Commission records show that Boswell, of Des Moines, took in more than $180,000 in contributions between April 1 and May 14. Of that sum, $93,000 came from political action committees, or a little more than half of his total donations.

Boswell, who’s been in office since 1996 and sits on the House agriculture and transportation committees, reported $709,000 cash on hand. He spent $311,000 during the period battling Fallon.

Fallon, also of Des Moines, reported that he collected nearly $73,000, including a $25 contribution from his own pocket. Fallon has been endorsed by groups such as Democracy for America that have assisted him in gaining individual contributions on the Internet, which he has needed since he does not accept PAC money.

Fallon spent about $64,000 during the period and said he had about $28,000 cash on hand by May 14.

Fallon’s campaign strategy has focused on building a strong field operation. During his liveblog session at the EENR blog today, he expressed optimism based on his campaign’s direct voter contacts, and mentioned that yesterday alone the campaign had over 2,200 phone calls and door knocks. Lacking the money to match Boswell’s spending on direct-mail and advertising, Fallon’s chance to pull off an upset depends on the success of his efforts to identify and turn out supporters.

As for the issues, Boswell is still trying to downplay differences between himself and Fallon, telling a reporter for the weekly Cityview,

“If you look at the issues, there’s just not a lot of difference between us,” Boswell said. “He’s taking things out of context and trying to conjure up differences that don’t exist.”

That same article quotes Boswell as promising to support the winner of the primary, which is the first time I’ve heard him make that pledge. He must be feeling very confident, since earlier this spring his campaign would not give me an unequivocal statement promising to support the winner of the primary.

Meanwhile, Boswell’s Congressional office will not take my phone calls or return my voice mail messages seeking clarification of his stand on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. More background on that issue is in this post.

If Boswell has quietly agreed to go along with Republican efforts to grant retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies, despite his public stand with House Democrats on this issue in March, the voters of the third district deserve to know about it.

The full text of today’s e-mail from campaign manager Scott Ourth is after the jump.

The Iowa Environmental Council sent out this message today, asking citizens to weigh in with the Department of Natural Resources on the need to implement Antidegradation Rules.

Most people are not aware that Iowa has never implemented such rules, even though the federal Clean Water Act requires it.

The IEC’s message includes more background information as well as a sample letter you can e-mail to the appropriate person at the DNR.

As always, it’s better if you can put such written communications in your own words rather than copying and pasting the sample text.

Iowa lakes, rivers and streams:

Waste receptacles or natural resources belonging to the people of Iowa?

In Iowa, as in other states, we have a state agency which grants wastewater discharge permits to regulated businesses, industries and municipalities, giving them permission to dump pollution in our rivers and streams. State-established water quality standards and the current condition of the water at the point of pollution discharge determine how much pollution will be allowed to be discharged.

Water quality standards, as currently implemented in Iowa, determine the maximum amount of pollution allowed before the water becomes so polluted that the public health or health of aquatic life is threatened. Iowa Water quality “standards” are lines that pollutant levels cannot cross without harming drinking water, people who swim in the water, people who eat the fish, etc.

It is important that Iowans realize that Iowa’s current water quality standards are not actually preserving good water quality in Iowa, but, in fact, are allowing our waters to border on the brink of disgust. That’s why Antidegradation Rules are so important.

Antidegradation Rules are required by the federal Clean Water Act, but have never been implemented in Iowa. In essence, these rules ensure that no new pollution is allowed which would lower the water quality below its current level, unless that new pollution is determined to be necessary (no reasonable alternative exists) and it is a byproduct of something important for the economic and social development in the community. Area citizens must decide if the public benefits of the project justify the loss of water quality.

Because of our state’s failure to implement Antidegradation Rules, industries, businesses and municipalities in Iowa may have the impression that our rivers, streams and lakes are waste receptacles. They may believe that they have a right to dump pollution into these “waste receptacles” until the line-the water quality standard-is crossed. And, in practice, that is exactly the right they have been granted if they hold an Iowa permit to discharge pollution.

But Iowa waters belong to the citizens of Iowa. Under the federal Clean Water Act, citizens have the legal right to demand that our state preserve good water quality in our lakes, rivers and streams. Iowa citizens have the right to demand that we wait no longer to implement Antidegradation Rules in Iowa.

Last October the Iowa Environmental Council petitioned the Iowa Department of Natural Resources to implement antidegradation rules in Iowa. As a result of that petition, the state is now moving forward to develop Antidegradation Rules that will assure that current water quality will be maintained wherever possible. Formal rulemaking is expected to begin in July 2008 and to be finalized in early 2009. But stakeholder meetings have already begun.

Iowans value their lakes, streams and rivers for recreation and drinking water. With the Iowa Department of Natural Resources finally beginning the process of making Antidegradation Rules, many Iowans are speaking out to ensure that the water quality in their favorite lake, stream or river will be preserved. Please consider personalizing and sending the letter below…

Lori McDaniel

Supervisor, Water Quality Bureau

Iowa Department of Natural Resources

502 East 9th Street

Des Moines, IA 50319-0034

Lori.McDaniel AT dnr.iowa.gov

RE: Antidegradation Rules

Dear Ms. McDaniel,

I am writing to express my support for strong antidegradation rules which protect all of Iowa’s high quality waters.  It is important that we do not allow further degradation of these precious resources.

Please add me to your email list to receive information as the rules move forward.  I’m especially interested in dates scheduled for public comment.

Thank you for your consideration of this request.

Sincerely, (end of letter)

UPDATE: Some people I spoke with this afternoon were confused by this message and thought it came from Lori McDaniel.

To be clear, the message about water quality in Iowa, and the need for Antidegradation Rules, came from the Iowa Environmental Council.

Lori McDaniel is the person at DNR to whom written comments should be addressed.

If you’re reading this diary before 1 pm, there is still time to click over and ask a question:

http://www.eenrblog.com/showDi…

Otherwise, you can click the link later to read the transcript of the liveblog session.

I have obtained a direct-mail piece that Becky Greenwald’s campaign has sent out before the June 3 primary in the fourth Congressional district. I don’t know how large a universe received this mailer–whether it was just Democrats who are reliable voters, all Democrats, or also included voters not registered as Democrats.

I’ve described the visuals of the mailer and transcribed the text after the jump. It’s an interesting combination of the personal and the political, with the look of a family scrapbook.

I hope that Bleeding Heartland readers in the fourth district will tell us about any other direct-mail pieces or door-hangers you have received from Democrats hoping to take on Latham.

If you scan the images into a diary, or transcribe the text and describe the visuals, I will promote your diary to the front page.

Join me after the jump for more on “The Girl Next Door.”

Consider heading to DMACC this afternoon for a meeting I only just learned about from Iowa Independent:

http://www.iowaindependent.com…

Members of The White House Project will visit Iowa on Thursday to help buoy efforts to create a five-year plan to elect more Iowa women into political office.

The meeting will be held from 4:30 p.m. to 7 p.m. May 22 in Building 7, Oak and Maple rooms, Des Moines Area Community College in Ankeny.

Two Minnesota staffers from the project will discuss the non-profit, non-partisan group’s national goal to help increase the number of women into elected positions including the U.S. presidency. They’ll also discuss Iowa’s needs and the creation of a five-year plan to increase women political leaders in Iowa, among other things.

Sounds interesting–if anyone attends this event, please put up a diary or at least a comment afterwards in this thread.  

Michelle Cottle recently wrote a fascinating and thorough account of where Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign went wrong. Click that link to read the whole article at The New Republic, which is the “exclusive story of Hillary’s fall, as told by the high-level advisors, staffers, fundraisers, and on-the-ground organizers who lived it.”

Markos has a simpler explanation:

If Clinton hadn’t voted for Bush’s war, and compounded that grievous mistake by voting for that Iran bill, she’d likely be the nominee.

John Judis largely agrees with Markos but adds a few other points. For instance, he notes that Clinton waited a long time to go negative on Obama, and then when she did, she did it in a way that backfired with certain Democratic constituences and the political/media class.

Clinton supporter “lombard” posted his or her own list of reasons Hillary lost at MyDD.

I think there is some truth to all of these explanations. It could not be more obvious that Mark Penn believed his own spin about Hillary being so far ahead almost everywhere that the nomination would end on Super Tuesday. The Clinton campaign had no game plan for the nomination battle going beyond February 5.

Meanwhile, Obama started out so far behind, and had such good fundraising, that he was working on building an organization in every state to counteract Hillary’s advantage.

I think Iowans were bound to go for an alternative to Hillary, which is one reason why I was saying all last year that she would finish no better than third here. We knew that if Hillary won Iowa, the race was over. The battle was over who would be the “not Hillary” to win Iowa. But if the Clinton campaign hadn’t made other strategic errors, they would have been able to ride out losing Iowa.

I would add that the media strongly favored Obama over Clinton, especially between October and February. The debate on October 30 was one of the turning points in this election. Obama had plenty of missteps in various debates during 2007, but he never got hammered the way Hillary did after that debate. It was her worst debate of the year, but really, she didn’t do that badly.

That was right around the same time the media bashed Clinton on other things too (including the false story that she and her entourage didn’t tip the staff at an Iowa diner). And after failing to gain traction against Hillary for months, Obama started moving up in national polls soon after that October 30 debate.

I wouldn’t say the media were the main factor in Hillary’s loss, but they had their thumb on the scales for sure. (Judis mentions this in his piece as well.) In part, journalists were probably bored with Hillary being ahead and wanted a closer horse race. Also, it can’t be denied that Obama simply appeals more to the pundit class than the Clintons ever did.

I can’t put it any better than Matt Stoller did did in late January (keep in mind that Stoller prefers Obama to Clinton):

For now, Matthew Yglesias, K-Lo at NRO’s the Corner, Andrew Sullivan, and Josh Marshall are all effusively praising Obama.  There’s something of a DC-New York Ivy pundit crush on Obama that I’m seeing all over the place.  The Village is happy as a clam to see Hillary and Bill go down.  And be aware that the Village doesn’t like us and wants us to shut up and stop bothering them about silly things like civil rights and the Consti-whatever it’s called.  And oh yeah, Iraq.

So as you are seeing the primary play out, note that Obama’s coalition is resting on what is potentially a very fragile foundation.  I find Obama’s organizing capacity remarkable and wonderful for all sorts of reasons, and I’ll have more on that soon.  But keep in mind that the weird alliance between the pro-Obama netroots, the DC Villagers and media, the right-wing establishment, business leaders, social justice activists, and black elites is temporary.  These varying interests only intersect on one thing, and that is taking down the Clinton’s.  A Village temper tantrum against the Clinton’s happens periodically, and it is never a good thing.  Ever.  And if and once the Clinton’s have lost, the fraying of this coalition will happen instantly and unpredictably, depending on Obama’s personal allegiances and the various political interests and their calculations.  

Speaking of Hillary, go read American007’s diary about what she may want to bargain for in any negotiations with Obama.

We took the kids to the Omaha Zoo today and got home too late for me to participate in Kevin Miskell’s liveblog session at the EENR blog.

Some background and the first few questions are in this post:

http://www.eenrblog.com/showDi…

The rest of the Q and A is here:

http://www.eenrblog.com/showDi…

Tomorrow (Thursday) Ed Fallon is liveblogging at EENR between noon and 1 pm. If you want to ask him some questions, go here:

http://www.eenrblog.com

While you’re there, check out the other diaries. For the most part, the EENR blog focuses on issues rather than candidates, and a lot of good substantive diaries are posted there.

What did I miss?

If you were there, please put up a comment to tell us about it.

I’m not sure I’ll be able to log on later to update this diary with the results, but please use this thread to discuss how things went tonight.

There will be frequent updates at:

http://www.dailykos.com

http://www.mydd.com

What will tomorrow’s headlines be?

As I mentioned on Sunday, some high-quality state blogs did not receive credentials to cover the Democratic National Convention this summer in Denver.

Today 12 state blogs that did receive credentials have issued an open letter to Howard Dean and the Democratic National Committee protesting the exclusion of some prominent blogs. Kos has the whole letter available at his blog if you click the link.

Much more background on the controversy is here. By allowing state parties to exclude politically inconvenient blogs, the DNC didn’t even follow the criteria it set up for the selection process. They need to deal with this snafu quickly.

Tom Harkin has right-wing bloggers in a tizzy because he recently suggested that the military tradition in McCain’s family has given him a dangerously imbalanced worldview:

“I think one of the problems that John McCain has is that his grandfather was an admiral, his father was an admiral,” Harkin said on a conference call with Iowa Independent and other media. “He comes from a long line of just military people. I think his whole world view, his life view, has been shaped from a military viewpoint and he has a hard time of thinking beyond that. And I think he’s trapped in that, so everything is looked at sort of from his life experiences as always having been in the military and I think that can be pretty dangerous.”

I see what Harkin is getting at–McCain’s background makes him unlikely to get us out of Iraq and perhaps more likely to get us involved in other wars. Still, I don’t think this is good messaging against McCain. Americans are not going to reject his candidacy because he comes from too military of a family.

Harkin was on more solid ground when he talked about McCain’s “scary” temper. McCain has a long history of losing it that suggests he lacks the temperament to be president. This is a huge mark in Barack Obama’s favor, because Obama is much more even-tempered.

But for those who are tired of talking about McCain’s anger management problem, I offer ten more reasons not to support the GOP nominee:

1. Mr. Straight Talk can’t keep his story straight when it comes to Iraq, the economy, tax cuts or other issues. Brave New Films shows you the evidence in “The Real McCain 2”:

2. McCain has employed senior campaign workers with a history of lobbying for foreign corporations or brutal foreign regimes. In fact, the man McCain chose to run this summer’s Republican National Convention is a lobbyist whose firm represented the Burmese junta.

McCain’s campaign has fired at least six employees this month because of their lobbying ties, including his national finance co-chairman Tom Loeffler, whose firm collected millions from Saudi Arabia and other foreign governments.

Even so, McCain is still employing Senior Political Adviser Charlie Black, who has lobbied for:

   * Ahmed Chalabi, the smooth talking Iraqi exile who helped manufacture the WMD charges against Saddam Hussien that led the U.S. to invade.

   * Philippine dictator Ferdinand Marcos, found guilty of torture, executions, disappearances, and human rights violations, who hired Black to “improve” his image in the U.S.

   * Somali dictator Mohamed Siad Barre, who’s army massacred between 40,000 and 50,000 civilians in two years.

   * Dictator Mobuto Sese Seko of Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of Congo), who amassed a vast personal fortune and repressed rival political parties while his country’s children starved.

   * Angolan rebel leader Jonas Savimbi of UNITA, an ally of apartheid-era South Africa, who started a civil war which claimed hundreds of thousands of lives and ordered the torture and murder of countless opponents.

   * Nigerian Dictator Ibrahim Babangida ran a one-party regime, who arrested his opponents, and murdered journalists.

3. McCain has only released two years of his own tax returns and none of his wife Cindy’s tax returns, despite a growing consensus that the public has a right to know about McCain’s personal finances.

Why should you care? Because in the past Cindy McCain had business dealings with a crook whom Senator McCain helped bail out. We need to know if similar conflicts of interest exist today.

4. McCain’s campaign has underpaid for the use of his wife’s corporate jet, even though the self-styled campaign finance reformer has backed legislation that would require candidates to pay the real costs of using corporate jets.

Even after his hypocrisy on this issue was exposed, McCain continues to use his wife’s corporate jet for campaign purposes.

5. McCain’s foreign policy in in all meaningful ways the same as George Bush’s.

6. McCain is running for president on his “vast experience,” but he keeps confusing Sunnis with Shiites, even after being corrected by his buddy Joe Lieberman.

7. McCain says a lot of the problems in the U.S. economy are just “psychological.”

8. McCain’s judicial appointments would likely be the same kind of extreme conservatives George Bush has favored:

The Senator has long touted his opposition to Roe, and has voted for every one of Bush’s judicial appointments; the rhetoric of his speech shows that he is getting his advice on the Court from the most extreme elements of the conservative movement.

9. McCain’s campaign has been bashing Obama for supposedly being willing to negotiate with the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas, but McCain said two years ago that the U.S. would have to engage Hamas if that group were running the Palestinian government.

10. McCain’s campaign blog misleadingly portrays the GOP candidate as a progressive, even though his voting record and stands on the issues are hard-line conservative.

For more on McCain’s record, see the Democratic National Committee’s new clearinghouse for research about him and MoveOn.org’s list of Ten Things You Should Know about John McCain.

By the way, McCain’s continuing problem with fundraising suggests that a lot of Republicans have their own reasons for not supporting the GOP nominee.

It’s incredible to think that even after a campaign that dragged on for months longer than the Republican nominating battle, the Democratic nominee is likely to have a financial edge over McCain this fall.

Feel free to post comments about other reasons not to support McCain that I’ve left out.

Tomorrow’s primary day in Kentucky and Oregon.

Chris Bowers has the latest polling averages for both states.

I’m going with Clinton winning Kentucky 65-30, with Edwards pulling 5 percent. I have no idea why he is still on the ballot there, but apparently he is, as he was in West Virginia (where he got 7 percent).

I’ll pick Obama to win Oregon 58-42. I have no clue what will happen in the Democratic Senate primary in that state.

If you like scenario spinning, go read DavidNYC’s projection of how Obama could win Mississippi this November. Doesn’t sound likely to me against a Republican military hero, but I suppose stranger things have happened.

Finally, political junkies should read Benny’s diary on the right hand side of your screen.

Kevin Miskell, candidate in the IA-04 primary, will be liveblogging at the EENR blog this Wednesday, May 21, from 6 to 7 pm.

Ed Fallon will be liveblogging at EENR on Thursday, May 22, from noon to 1 pm.

Benny’s diary has instructions for registering at EENR, if you are not already a registered user, and for submitting questions for Fallon in advance.

UDPATE: Turns out Markos and I are on the same wavelength with our predictions:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyo…

Click the link to read what Poblano and others project.

Ed Fallon has again emphasized agricultural policy in his campaign against Congressman Leonard Boswell.

Contact: Stacy Brenton

Fallon for Congress

(515) 822-3029

stacy@fallonforcongress.com

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Fallon Kicks Off ‘New Energy for Iowa Tour’

Proposes National CAFO Moratorium

Monday, May 19, 2008 – Today in Des Moines, Ed Fallon kicked off his ‘New Energy for Iowa Tour’ with an announcement that if elected to Congress, Fallon would propose a national moratorium on hog confinements built by big corporations. Fallon sees this as a critical step toward restoring vitality to rural areas suffering from the loss of populations, farm employment and economic development.”

Fallon says, “Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO) are having an adverse effect on the environment, agriculture, health and local farm and business operations. We need to stop the consolidation and explosion of this industry and renew our commitment to growing a sustainable economy and quality of life in rural Iowa. I commit to leading the way on this issue in Washington, given the lack of leadership here at the state level.”

Fallon and Boswell have drawn contrasts with one another on farm policy several times during this campaign. In general, Boswell is happy with current federal agriculture policies and is proud of his work on them, while Fallon is not satisfied with the priorities that guide current agriculture policies.

Fallon is right to say CAFOs should be a federal concern, because there appears to be little hope of making progress on regulating them at the state level.

Meanwhile, evidence is mounting that CAFOs incur huge hidden costs on society.

For more on why Fallon is right on this issue, read the final report from the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production and this recent report from the Union of Concerned Scientists, “CAFOs Uncovered: The Untold Costs of Confined Animal Feeding Operations.”