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.

OK, political junkies, show us your stuff. Who will win the high-profile primaries in Iowa today?

By that I mean, who will win the Democratic primaries in Iowa’s third and fourth Congressional districts?

Who will win the Republican primary in Iowa’s second Congressional district? (Iowa Independent and the Des Moines Register have profiled the three candidates seeking to take on Congressman Dave Loebsack.)

UPDATE: I forgot that you can also predict which of these three Republicans will become the chump who’ll be lucky to get 40 percent of the vote against Tom Harkin this November.

I will update this post later with my own predictions for the Congressional races.

John Deeth has an outstanding post up going over some of the key primaries in the Iowa House and Senate races. I don’t know enough about those races to make my own predictions, but I encourage you to mention them in your comments if you want to test your prognosticating skills against Deeth’s.

SECOND UPDATE: Finally ready to post my predictions.

Although the GOP establishment seems to be behind Eichhorn for Senate, I’m guessing that Steve Rathje will win that primary. I give him zero chance against Harkin.

In IA-02, I think Mariannette Miller-Meeks will win. I doubt she will give Loebsack much trouble, and I’ll explain why another day.

In IA-04, I think Becky Greenwald will win with at least 35 percent, enough to avoid having to pick the nominee at a district convention. I say this because she’s raised a lot of money, she has the best connections in the southern part of the district, and it doesn’t hurt to be one woman running against three men in a Democratic primary.

In IA-03, I think Boswell will win but by less than 10 points. To be more specific, I’ll go with 54-46 as my guess.

Mike Lux also thinks Boswell will win but warns that his “over-reaction” will make it closer than it should have been:

Boswell’s over-the-top negative campaign against Ed has caused a serious negative reaction, and has got everyone talking. I talked to at least half a dozen people who said they were planning to vote for Leonard, but have switched to Ed because of the mailings, and even Boswell’s supporters have been made nervous and set on edge by the mailings.

I have not seen the Fallon campaign’s internal numbers, and I do not know enough about the process that generated them. My impression is that they did some kind of random selection of voters from the database and then had people call to check their preferences (correct me if I am wrong). My worry is that a lot of polite Iowans may have lied about their intentions when called by someone from the Fallon campaign.

I wrote last week that Congressman Leonard Boswell’s closing argument is “I’m loyal, he voted for Nader.” A radio ad I heard in the car on Monday confirmed that impression.

I couldn’t jot down notes and have been unable to find an audio file of this ad on the web, but I will update this post with that information if someone can send it to me.

The ad used a female voice-over rather than Boswell’s voice. The first part of the ad relayed positive information about the incumbent:

-The teachers have endorsed Boswell because of his work on education.

-The nurses have endorsed Boswell because of his work on health care.

-Working families support Boswell because he stands up for them.

-Al Gore and Tom Harkin are also supporting Boswell.

Then the ad shifts gears with language about how it’s a different story with Ed Fallon. Fallon supported Ralph Nader over Al Gore in 2000. Because Fallon campaigned for Nader instead of Gore, Democrats have been stuck with eight years of President George W. Bush, with a lousy economy and an unending war in Iraq.

All of the above is a paraphrase based on my best recollection. If anyone else has heard this ad (or better yet, has a recording of it), I would love to post a more precise version of its contents.

On one level, I am not surprised that Boswell is talking about Nader in his radio ads, because that is clearly his trump card.

On the other hand, I expected Boswell to stick to all-positive advertising in broadcast media. Typically an incumbent does not go negative on a primary challenger unless there is some concern about the outcome.

By the way, on Saturday and Monday I didn’t receive any direct-mail from either Boswell’s campaign or the anti-Fallon group Independent Voices.

As far as I can tell, the Boswell campaign’s attempt to draw a contrast between Boswell and Fallon regarding methamphetamine got no traction in any Iowa mainstream media. Please correct me if I am wrong, and let me know if you have seen media reports on that issue in the past couple of days.

UPDATE: Boswell’s campaign manager Scott Ourth sent out his final mass e-mail yesterday. I’ve put the full text after the jump.

I live in Iowa House district 59, which includes Windsor Heights, Clive and parts of West Des Moines. Republicans have held this seat since before I was born, but I am convinced that Windsor Heights Mayor Jerry Sullivan has a strong chance to flip this district for the Democrats.

Judging from two calls I received in the past 48 hours, some Republicans are worried about that possibility too.

On Sunday evening I got a robocall from “Survey 2000” claiming to have a brief 30-second survey for me to answer. The first question was whether I planned to vote in the June 3 Democratic primary. The second was whether I planned to vote for Jerry Sullivan or Mark Matel in the primary. Then the push-polling started.

I jotted down what I could with pencil and paper, but the robocall voice went fast, so I don’t have anything close to the verbatim wording of the call.

One question asked whether a candidate’s position on a woman’s right to choose was important, and followed up with some language suggesting that Jerry Sullivan does not support that right.

The next question asked whether I thought elected officials should keep our taxes low, and followed up by saying that Windsor Heights property taxes were very high while Sullivan was mayor.

Finally, there was a question and follow-up information relating to Sullivan’s support for last summer’s Project Destiny referendum, which failed by a huge margin.

This call had all the telltale marks of a push-poll. No demographic information was collected, so the results could not be analyzed in any useful way by a campaign or a public polling firm. Only negative information about one candidate was pushed. In contrast, a legitimate message-testing poll, such as the one commissioned by Congressman Leonard Boswell’s campaign in January, will test positive and negative messages about one or more candidates.

I jotted down the phone number given at the end of the call. It went by fast, but I think I wrote it down correctly: 703-263-2511. I tried to call that number and got only busy signals.

On Monday at about 4:15 pm, I got a different robocall. This was not a fake poll, but it was otherwise similar to the call I received Sunday night.

This time a woman’s voice said she was calling from “Survey 2008” (which was pronounced “Survey two zero zero eight”) with important information about the primary coming up on June 3.

First, she said that Windsor Heights property taxes went from one of the lowest to the second-highest in the Des Moines metro area while Jerry Sullivan was mayor.

Then, she said that Sullivan worked to pass Project Destiny, which was supported by wealthy business interests.

Then, she said Sullivan was believed to support ending a woman’s right to choose an abortion.

The phone number given at the end of this call was 703-263-1908, which probably is a different phone line at the same office that produced the call I got Sunday evening.

First things first: I contacted Sullivan’s campaign manager and confirmed that the candidate is pro-choice. There is no basis for these calls suggesting that he would seek to end a woman’s right to choose. I suspect that they tried that line because Sullivan is Catholic and has a Catholic-sounding name, and they figured this argument would hurt him with Democratic primary voters.

A neighbor called me yesterday to report getting a nasty robocall about Sullivan. When we compared notes, it was obviously the same call. She assumed that Sullivan’s opponent in the Democratic primary, Mark Matel, was behind the call, but my hunch is that these calls were not arranged by any of the rival candidates for this seat.

I doubt that either Matel or Republican Susan Murphy have the resources to fund this kind of operation, even if they wanted to. I assume that Chris Hagenow, the favorite to win the Republican nomination, is focused on winning his primary race, although he may have raised enough money to fund calls like these.

The language on taxes used in both calls suggests to me that a Republican interest group is behind them. Iowans for Tax Relief has endorsed Hagenow, so that group might be a prime suspect. I am sure they would rather not see the relatively inexperienced Hagenow run against someone with Sullivan’s background in business and public service.

It’s also possible that the Iowa Republican Party decided to spend money on roughing up Sullivan in the Democratic primary. Presumably the seat would be easier for Republicans to hold if Sullivan loses the primary, or if they can damage his reputation among the loyal Democratic voters who show up for primaries.

The phone numbers given at the end of the calls should point toward the firm that produced them, but that would not necessarily reveal what candidate or entity paid for the calls.

If you receive calls pushing negative information on any candidate this year, please take as detailed notes as you can. That’s easier when there is a live caller, because you can ask him or her to repeat the questions. Stay on the line until the end of the call and write down the phone number, which they are legally required to give. Then contact the campaign of the candidate being attacked in the call, so they know right away what is going on.

I also encourage Bleeding Heartland users to put up a diary at this blog if you receive any push-poll or obnoxious robocalls this year.

Also special thanks to the authors of Bleeding Heartland for promoting my diaries and the diaries of my opponents over the last few months.  We all appreciate your dedication to giving us front row.

I hope my next posting will be signed as Democratic Nominee.  

Thanks again and FORWARD MARCH!

Special thanks to the Midwest Democrat for their endorsement of me.

http://www.midwestdemocrat.com/2008/06/iowa-endorsements.html 

Below is a list of great Chicken Crossing the Road jokes.

I am sure Becky, Kevin and Kurt would rather you all poke fun at us in this manner than attacking each other.  The jokes below will serve as a good guideline.

Let's see who can come up with the best additions pertaining to ALL FOUR OF US CANDIDATES.  KEEP IT CLEAN, BUT HAVE FUN WITH IT.  ALL FOUR OF US DO HAVE GREAT SENSES OF HUMOR. 

Becky, Kurt, Kevin and myself have been through hell for the last few months and this evening ALL FOUR OF US are stressed to the max.  I am sure not a single one of you have any idea what we are going through this evening.  I guarantee Becky, Kevin and Kurt are just as awake and overwhelmed with anxiety as I am.  Not only have we stressed ourselves financially, but physically, and mentally.  All of our families have suffered through this process.  We have been through more than you could ever know in this quest for the nomination.  We have done this to make our nation BETTER FOR ALL OF YOU.

While we all appreciate having passionate supporters, the last thing we need are phone calls regarding cat fights on blogs.  It would help ALL FOUR OF US immensely for all of you to kiss and make up and instead channel your positive energy for tomorrow evening.

That being said, Steve I am glad you came here and posted under your real name to clear up that attempt to pit our families against each other.

Sue, (mom #2) I am glad you have done the same.

For those of you who have attacked my credibility, no it did not work.  I know how hard it is right now, because I am living it.  Your attacks do not make it any easier on the people you are representing, especially when you are making false accusations as a paid staffer. I don't know if you did the same thing with B's campaign, but I am sure he would have never allowed it if he knew.

Others with questions, please contact through my website: meyersforhouse.com and I would be happy to answer ANY of your questions.  I am not posting here to debate, but to introduce and inform and promote not only myself, but the agenda of our party.  If you would care to attack me, then at least have the guts to use your real names, as I have used mine.

Lastly, I would like to personally invite any of you to join my family, friends and I for a primary election gathering in Boone tomorrow evening.  We will be at the Colorado Bar and Grill, located on South Marshall Street beginning about 8 P.M.  Map below. 

If we don’t want to see John McCain elected president, we need to chip away at his “maverick” image and demonstrate how he has marched in lockstep with the Bush White House.

This web video produced by the Democratic National Committee is a step in the right direction:

Help this video go viral by sending the link to friends, or putting it up on your blog if you have one. Alternatively, reward good behavior by making a donation to the DNC.

Mr. desmoinesdem is reading Jan Crawford Greenburg’s book Supreme Conflict: The Inside Story of the Struggle for Control of the United States Supreme Court. (It was reviewed here at the Volokh conspiracy blog.)

When Justice William Brennan left the court at the beginning of Poppy Bush’s presidency, Kenneth Starr was the early favorite to get the nomination, but Bush’s Attorney General Richard Thornburgh rejected him as “unacceptable” because he was not reliably conservative enough.

So Bush’s chief of staff John Sununu (a former governor of New Hampshire) and New Hampshire Senator Warren Rudman prevailed upon the White House to nominate David Souter instead. Oops!

Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley was among the Senate Republicans who were deeply concerned by the answers Souter gave during his confirmation hearings. But according to Greenburg, Republicans

could not abandon a man the White House had assured them was a reliable conservative. Some assumed Souter was simply pandering to Democrats to get through the committee, and they refused to believe he meant what he said.

Souter was the last “stealth conservative” you’ll ever see a Republican president nominate for the Supreme Court. If John McCain gets elected, expect more like Clarence Thomas, John Roberts and Samuel Alito.