The U.S. House has been debating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The invaluable Kagro X, one of the very best analysts ever to post at Daily Kos, explained some of the complicated legislative maneuvers in this post yesterday. Kagro X gave the short version of what’s going on in this post earlier today.

Click that first link if you’ve been disappointed in Senate Majority leader Harry Reid, because he did a very clever thing on this bill.

You will recall that Leonard Boswell was one of 21 House Democrats to work with Republicans to try to secure retroactive immunity for telecom companies in this bill. Some background information is here.

Well, today Boswell has joined with the majority of House Democrats. mcjoan has more at Daily Kos, including a statement from Boswell.

Raise your hand if you think Boswell would have changed his position on this issue if he were not facing a primary challenge from Ed Fallon.

UPDATE: mcjoan explains what happened here:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyo…

Boswell and 12 other blue dogs stuck with the Democrats today. Good for them.

SECOND UPDATE: Call Boswell’s office and thank him for this vote:

Rep. Leonard L. Boswell, D-Iowa — Phone: (202) 225-3806, Fax: (202) 225-5608

According to Daily Kos user Los Diablo,

#

* [new] I just got off the phone with his D.C. office (9+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

   Rolfyboy6, Miss Blue, oldjohnbrown, 3goldens, Ma Joad, mffarrow, robroser, eco d, llamaRCA

and they thanked me for thanking him because they are getting a hammered with negative calls because he supported this.

Senator Tom Harkin: Bush has vetoed him more than any senator.

by Los Diablo on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:18:30 PM PDT

By the way, I love Los Diablo’s signature line about Harkin!

Having used cloth diapers on my kids for the past five years, I had mixed feelings about this piece in Thursday’s Des Moines Register. Reporter Erin Crawford agreed to try cloth diapers for a short time.

While it’s great that she let readers know there are better options today than pins and rubber pants, I wish she had talked more about the health and environmental benefits of using cloth diapers.

Her husband complained that the cloth diapers seemed “unhygienic.”

Apparently he doesn’t realize that disposable diapers are full of chemicals that may be absorbed through baby’s wet skin, or that disposable diapers send more untreated sewage to our landfills (click the link to see the references in the footnotes):

Of more serious concern are the toxic chemicals present in disposable diapers. Dioxin, which in various forms has been shown to cause cancer, birth defects, liver damage, and skin diseases, is a by-product of the paper-bleaching process used in manufacturing disposable diapers, and trace quantities may exist in the diapers themselves.6

And what about the material that makes “superabsorbent” diapers so absorbent? If you’ve ever used disposable diapers, you’ve probably noticed beads of clear gel on your baby’s genitals after a diaper change. Superabsorbent diapers contain sodium polyacrylate, which absorbs up to 100 times its weight in water. Sodium polyacrylate is the same substance that was removed from tampons in 1985 because of its link to toxic shock syndrome.7 No studies have been done on the long-term effects of this chemical being in contact with a baby’s reproductive organs 24 hours a day for upwards of two years.

Neither type of diaper can claim to be more sanitary. In the early 1990s, right around the time many states were considering offering incentives to hospitals and daycare centers to switch to cloth diapers, disposable diaper manufacturers attempted to prove that cloth diapers contribute more to the spread of bacteria. In fact, it is the caregiver’s hand-washing habits, and not the type of diapers, that is the deciding factor. “The research in this area was funded by special interests,” points out Janet Primomo, RN, PhD, associate professor of nursing at the University of Washington, Tacoma. “It’s not a question of whether cloth or disposables are more sanitary–it all depends on practices and procedures, such as hand washing habits and what kind of storage containers are used.”

There is, however, a more serious threat of contamination from disposable diapers, because of human sewage going into landfills. The disposal of human waste in residential garbage is technically prohibited, and instructions on disposable diaper packaging recommend that you shake out any fecal matter into the toilet before disposing of it; but in practice this is almost never done. Live viruses in the feces, such as the polio vaccine, can live in landfills for a long period, and if there were ever any leakage, could potentially contaminate a community’s drinking water. So far, there has been no evidence of contamination–this is more of a concern in Third World countries, where landfills aren’t as well constructed, and disposable diapers are being marketed aggressively.

Here is more troubling information about the potential effects of chemicals in disposable diapers:

1999 A study, “Acute Respiratory Effects of Diaper Emissions,” in the October issue of Archives of Environmental Health, finds that laboratory mice exposed to various brands of disposable diapers suffered eye, nose, and throat irritation, including bronchoconstriction similar to that of an asthma attack. Chemicals released from the diapers included toluene, xylene, ethylbenzene, styrene, and isopropylbenzene, among others. The lead author of the study, Dr. Rosalind C. Anderson, advises asthmatic mothers to avoid exposure to these chemicals. Asthma rates are on a sharp incline in the US and worldwide, particularly among poor and inner-city children. Six leading brands of cotton and disposable diapers are tested. Of these, three are found not to affect the breathing of mice: American Fiber and Finishing Co., Gladrags organic cotton diapers, and Tender Care disposable diapers. Cloth diapers are not found to cause respiratory problems among mice.

I’ll never understand why many people have such a hangup about cloth diapers, which also save parents money on top of the health and environmental benefits. It’s just another load of laundry.  

I just got this e-mail from the co-chairs of John Edwards’ campaign in Iowa and wanted to post it for the benefit of you Edwards delegates who read Bleeding Heartland:

Dear Friend,

Many of you have called and written seeking guidance about what those of us who were elected as Edwards’ delegates in the precinct caucuses should do in the county conventions this weekend.  We are writing to you today to ask you to stand up for John this weekend.

Senator Edwards has been talking with both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama on a regular basis.  But he has not endorsed anyone and will not endorse anyone before this weekend.

John is spending most of his time working on the issues that were at the center of his campaign.  In fact, on Wednesday, John had an extended meeting with a group people from across the country about a national effort to keep the poverty issue in the public dialogue and to find real solutions to deal with this fundamentally moral issue.  On Thursday, he participated in a MOVE ON conference call to keep the political pressure on candidates on the need to end the war.  

We all know that John was the leader on every issue during the campaign, from health care to climate change to poverty to economic inequality to the need to reduce the influence of money and lobbyists to reducing college costs to restoring America’s moral authority in the world and on and on.  

In that spirit, this weekend we will be standing up for John Edwards, and we hope you will, too.  

With the economy slipping more and more every day, the need to build One America is more important than ever.   We think it is vital that those of us who were elected as delegates for John Edwards support his candidacy and the issues he raised.  He was fearless in speaking about the underlying truth of where we are as a nation and we think it is incumbent on us to keep that spirit alive at this next stage of the process in Iowa.

Thank you,

Roxanne Conlin & Rob Tully

I am not a delegate, but if I were, I would also be sticking with Edwards this weekend.

Who, besides smokers themselves, is most harmed by smoking in public places?

People who work in very smoky rooms in restaurants, bars and casinos. If you work a 40-hour week in one of those places, you might as well be a pack-a-day smoker yourself.

So it’s disappointing to see that the Iowa House substantially changed the proposed ban on smoking in most public places, according to the Des Moines Register:

http://www.desmoinesregister.c…

Smoking opponents called the new version of the bill a devastating blow to an earlier proposal that would have prohibited smoking at an estimated 99 percent of Iowa’s public places. They said the exemption approved by the House would weaken current law because, in some cases, special nonsmoking sections of restaurants would be unnecessary.

Advertisement

“It’s not very much good at all,” said Dan Ramsey, director of advocacy for the American Lung Association of Iowa. “It’s pretty much useless at this point.”

It sets up a showdown with the Iowa Senate, which has approved a widespread smoking ban that would include casinos, as well as nearly all bars and restaurants.

Some laws address problems, and some are intended to give the appearance of addressing a problem. The House version of the smoking ban is clearly the latter. It would do little to help the Iowans who are most at risk of falling ill because of exposure to second-hand smoke.

I sometimes take my kids to the Waveland, a classic old-fashioned diner in Des Moines. Last year I was stunned when the owner made that restaurant smoke-free. He said he had noticed over time that families were less likely to come because they didn’t want their kids around the smoke.

I would have thought the Waveland regulars would have rioted over a smoking ban, but the waitresses there told me everything went great with the transition. It’s a much more pleasant place to eat now, and the employees are not exposed to second-hand smoke all day long.

Measuring Size of Obama’s (Relative) Coattails on Congressional Races

This is a long diary to read so I will tell you upfront what my conclusion is after examining the recent SurveyUSA 50-state polling:  Yes, Barack Obama may indeed have huge coattails for Senate and Congressional races in the fall.  Now, to the long explanation —

The recent SurveyUSA polling indicated a relatively even match between Obama and Clinton re. who would have the most electoral votes when facing McCain.  Obama’s total came to 280 EV, while Hillary’s was 276 EV – a seemingly even match:

http://www.surveyusa.com/ECV_5…

http://www.surveyusa.com/ECV_5…

Since Barack Obama’s supporters claim he is running a people-powered campaign, I’m surprised they are not more upset that he is working behind the scenes to derail any plan for Michigan and Florida to redo their primaries.

As you know, the DNC stripped both states of their delegates for moving their primaries up to January. No one campaigned in either state, and Hillary Clinton won both primaries, although in Michigan hers was the only name on the ballot, with supporters of Obama and other candidates voting “uncommitted.”

Given how close this primary campaign is, and how important Michigan and Florida are in the general election, it seems only logical to find some compromise that would allow delegates from those states to be seated at the Democratic National Convention this summer. I understand why Obama doesn’t want to accept the delegate allocations from the January primaries, because he didn’t campaign in either state.

However, I don’t see the rationale for his campaign ruling out re-votes in both states. Why does Obama fear taking a few weeks after Pennsylvania to campaign in Michigan and Florida so that Democrats can express their preferences? Money is not a problem for him–he has more cash on hand than Clinton.

One compromise that seems sensible to me is a mail-in election in both states, which would be much less costly than restaging an ordinary primary. But Obama’s co-chair in Michigan has ruled that out, claiming that

“It disenfranchises people who need to participate and there are many questions with regard to security.”

Hunter said the Obama campaign will accept nothing but a 50-50 split of Michigan delegates between Clinton and Obama, who removed his name from the January ballot here in protest of the early date.

I don’t understand how a mail-in ballot disenfranchises anyone. If anything, the experience of Oregon shows that it would lead to much greater participation.

And what justification is there for a 50-50 delegate split out of Michigan? That is essentially the same thing as not counting Michigan voters at all.

But wait, it gets better: Obama is a co-sponsor of a bill in the U.S. Senate called

“The Universal Right To Vote By Mail Act”, which declares that NOT ALLOWING mail in voting in every state (28 do through absentee balloting) disenfranchises voters […]

That’s right, Barack Obama, who thinks all states should allow mail-in voting, has suddenly decided in the middle of a tough primary that it would not be fair to let Michigan and Florida Democrats mail in ballots.

He appears to be afraid of losing high-turnout elections in those states. And no wonder: he seems to do a lot better in lower-turnout caucuses (in some states getting two, three or four times as many delegates as Clinton) than in large-state primaries.

In addition, the demographics of Florida (lots of seniors, Latinos and Jews) and Michigan (lots of working-class whites and Catholics) seem to favor Clinton.

Talk Left commenter Steve M (a Clinton supporter) linked to these comments at the Michigan Liberal blog, in which Obama supporters in Michigan criticize the stance his campaign is taking against a re-vote.

Does Obama want to go into a general-election campaign having demanded that Florida and Michigan residents not have their votes counted in the primary?

We don’t watch Keith Olbermann’s Countdown show on MSNBC, but I wanted to note that according to Blog for Iowa, Congressman Steve King was Olbermann’s “worst person in the world” on Monday, thanks to his embarrassing and bigoted comments about Barack Obama from a few days earlier.

I have good news and bad news. The good news is that

The Senate voted 47-1 on Senate File 2347, which calls for the state to pay for new machines so that every county has machines with paper ballots that could be recounted after an election.

The plan calls for the state to buy one machine for each precinct that needs an equipment update.

This bill, which would cost the state about $8.6 million, is adapted from Secretary of State Mike Mauro’s sensible plan to make sure that every Iowan casts a vote on a paper ballot.

The bad news is that county officials are objecting to the bill’s provision that

County taxpayers would pick up the tab for shipping, software, testing of the machines, and all licensing fees. And some counties would need to buy special tables for certain machines.

Dubuque County, for example, would have to spend almost $100,000 of its own money up front, plus an extra $10,000 or so per year for storage, license fees and additional staff that would be needed to deliver the equipment in time for elections, said Tom O’Neill, Dubuque County’s deputy commissioner of elections.

Dubuque County bought 43 touch-screen machines two years ago to meet federal requirements for helping voters with disabilities. It wasn’t easy or cheap to train more than 300 pollworkers, many of whom are in their 60s and 70s, O’Neill said.

I have limited sympathy for these county officials. They never should have spent money on machines that lacked paper ballots. Touchscreen machines are at the very least an accident waiting to happen–who knows when a close race will need to be recounted? And in the worst-case scenario, touchscreen machines could be tampered with, possibly leading to the wrong candidate being declared the winner of an election.

Meanwhile, the Register noted that

Lawmakers today adopted an amendment that stemmed from Gov. Chet Culver’s demand for more oversight of Secretary of State Michael Mauro’s purchase of the equipment.

The amendment would require Mauro’s office to work in consultation with the Department of Administrative Services on the purchase. The department director, Mollie Anderson, reports directly to Culver. Mauro, as an elected official, doesn’t.

I trust Mike Mauro to handle this matter, but at the same time, I have no problem with this amendment, if that’s what was necessary to get Governor Culver on board with Mauro’s plan for replacing voting machines.

With any luck, the presidential race is not going to be as close this year as in 2000 and 2004, but we are likely to have some state legislative races decided by very small margins. I feel more confident knowing that in the event of a close race, there will be paper ballots to recount.

Saw this piece in the Des Moines Register and thought it was worth a mention:

Iowa would eliminate school open enrollment desegregation plans based entirely upon race under a proposal that lawmakers moved ahead with today.

House File 2164 would eliminate minority pupil ratios used in voluntary desegregation plans or with the state’s open enrollment law. Instead, it allows the Iowa Board of Education to adopt rules that establishes guidelines based on criteria other than race to set up diversity plans.

The proposal is linked to a U.S. Supreme Court decision last year that condemned a Seattle school’s desegregation plan as illegitimate because its objective was only to set racial balance without “any pedagogic concept of the level of diversity needed to attain the asserted educational benefits.”

At least five Iowa districts with desegregation plans have used race within the past year when deciding whether to allow students to transfer in or out of their districts. District officials in Des Moines, Davenport, Waterloo, Postville and West Liberty have already decided to use other factors to determine whether schools are integrated. Those factors include disability, language and income.

This seems like a sensible bill.

I thought I could break myself in here with a little background info about myself and mission.  I'll do my best, time permitting, to keep up with posting on a regular basis.  I am running my campaign myself.  We cannot afford paid staffers to take care of these types of things, so I hope you will all bear with me.

This came to me over e-mail. I appreciate the heads-up about events that progressive groups are planning.

The Iowa Global Warming campaign is back for 2008!

After a short hiatus, Iowa Global Warming is back to work and starting our 2008 campaign. After a successful 2007, in which most of the presidential candidates took increasingly strong positions on global warming, we are expanding our work to include state and local policies as well. Our goals are:

– To get people involved as effectively and easily as possible, even if you only have a minute to give.

– To create a ‘buzz’ for global warming solutions through public events, word of mouth and media attention.

– To provide opportunities to get together, meet new people and have fun.

– And most importantly to make sure that our elected officials make global warming solutions a priority!

In that spirit, you are invited to  Iowa Global Warming’s official campaign kickoff on St. Patrick’s Day – ‘You don’t have to be Irish to go Green’. Free admission to see ‘Leonardo DiCaprio’s The 11th Hour’. For more info on the film go to the website: www.11thHourFilm.com

Details: ‘The 11th Hour’ global warming documentary produced and narrated by Leonardo DiCaprio. Monday, March 17 from 6:30 – 9:00 pm @ Billy Joe’s Picture Show, 1701 25th St., West Des Moines. Free Admission, Free Appetizers, Free Popcorn and Beverages. Food and Drink Specials.

Iowa Global Warming is here to help; so if you have a question or want to get involved, please give us a call or send us an email. We will always try to get back to you as soon as possible. And of course, you can visit our website: www.iowaglobalwarming.org

Thank you for your support of our campaign. We’re looking forward to a great year of making Global Warming Solutions a priority!

Andrew Snow

Iowa Global Warming

521 E. Locust St, suite 220

Des Moines, IA 50311

515.244.1194 x209

asnow@iowaglobalwarming.org

Mike Carberry

Iowa Global Warming

2029 Friendship St.

Iowa City, IA 52245

319.338.8820

mcarberry@iowaglobalwarming.org

Please add other events I may not know about in the comments.

Tuesday, March 11:

You are invited to One Iowa ‘s “Happy Hour” at Ritual Cafe, a time to meet like-minded friends and relax in a welcoming atmosphere. If you have never attended, you will be put right at ease by the Happy Hour crowd. If you are a regular or have attended in the past, we want you to come see how we have grown!

Tuesday, March 11, 2008 – 5:00-6:45pm

Ritual Cafe – 13th Street in Des Moines

At One Iowa , we believe all families should have equal protections and responsibilities; the best way to achieve this is through marriage.  As we continue our work toward Marriage Equality, one of our outreach goals, is our story telling project, this project is at the forefront and to kick off this effort, we have invited these women to share their stories, in hopes that others will find their voice and share their stories with us.

This month One Iowa has the honor to host Laura Fefchak and her partner Nancy Robinson at Ritual, these women have agreed to come and “share their story.”  Please come and hear their experiences of raising two children, having married in Canada and the everyday life experiences of being a lesbian couple in 2008 in Iowa .  Their presentation will start at 5:30pm.  After the main presentation we will have laptops available so others can start sharing their stories.

Ritual Cafe, located on 13th Street between Grand and Locust in downtown Des Moines, is an LGBT-operated coffee shop and cafe offering “really great coffee and food” in an open and affirming place.

For questions, please contact One Iowa at (515)288-4019, or you can visit our web site at www.oneiowa.org.

Wednesday, March 12:

ISENHART CAMPAIGN FOR THE COMMON GOOD

Democratic Candidate for Iowa House District 27

MEET AND GREET

Wednesday, March 12, 2008

5:00 to 6:30 p.m.

Suite 106

Econolodge at the Fairgrounds

410 E. 30th Street, Des Moines

Join us afterwards for DUBUQUE NIGHT in DES MOINES

6:00 to 10:00 p.m.

Diamond Jack’s at the Fairgrounds / No admission charge

Charles Isenhart

CAMPAIGN for the COMMON GOOD

P.O. Box 3353

Dubuque, IA  52004-3353

www.commongoodcampaign.com

563-599-8839

Chad Cox, treasurer

2742 Tiffany Court

Dubuque, IA  52001

Also on Wednesday, March 12, Ed Fallon will hold the following events:

Des Moines Town Hall Meeting

9:00 to 10:00 am

Fair World Market

116 5th St.

West Des Moines

Newton Town Hall Meeting

11:30 to 12:30 pm

Uncle Nancy’s Coffeehouse and Eatery

114 N. 2nd Ave West,

Newton

Knoxville Town Hall Meeting

2:00 to 3:00 pm

The Swampbox Pub and Grill

116 N. 2nd St.

Knoxville

Friday, March 14:

ICSW Policy Lunch & Learn #3

Friday, March 14

12 noon – 1 p.m.

Legislative Dining Room * State Capitol

Free and open to the public * Bring your lunch and join us!

Protecting Iowa’s Families: Child Support and Domestic Violence

Join experts to discuss what legislation is moving forward to keep Iowa families safe and economically stable.

March 14th speakers:

·        Jerry McKim, Division of Community Action Agencies

·        Kristi Lohmeier , Iowa Policy Project

·        Jeanne Nesbit, Department of Human Services

·        Nancy Robertson , Iowa Coalition Against Domestic Violence

Panel moderated by Lori SchraderBachar, Iowa Commission on the Status of Women

In the Sunday opinion section, the Des Moines Register editorial board gave Leonard Boswell a “thistle” for using his franking privilege to send out a brochure that “crashes across” the line between “legitimate constituent communication and overt political campaigning.”

Ed Fallon has already complained about Boswell sending out campaign communications at the taxpayers’ expense.

Slowly but steadily we’re opening our central campaign office, located at 600 5^th Street in Ames.  For those involved in Dr. Spencer’s campaign in 2006, it’s the same office suite.  I use the word “slowly” to acknowledge that creating the necessary office infrastructure – such mundane but essential matters as desks and chairs, working space and storage space, networks and systems – requires time and patience.  Often, the press of schedules, deadlines, and emerging priorities intervenes and interrupts efforts that might otherwise be directed to settling in.  The good news:  we now have an office and it’s opening up deliberately…  like a flower.  Soon we’ll be in full bloom.  And, yes, we’ll schedule an open house and invite everyone to stop by and say hello.

Mention of infrastructure reminds me of the need for Washington leadership to ensure that our country is making wise, long-term investments in the infrastructure required for life in the 21^st century… roads and bridges, of course, but also an electricity transmission grid and a high-speed Internet infrastructure to ensure modern telecommunication benefits for Iowans.

Rich Dana, who posted this diary on energy policy here not long ago, had a great editorial on the front page of the opinion section of the Sunday Des Moines Register: Big utilities take wind out of locals’ future.

I hesitate to post any excerpt, because you really should go read the whole thing. But here is a particularly important passage:

Minnesota recently passed a “C-BED” law (Community-Based Economic Development) which levels the playing field for locally owned renewable-energy projects by establishing a tariff based on the utility industry’s own discount rates. For residential and small-business customers, Minnesota and a number of states across the nation offer rebate programs for individuals willing to invest in small-scale solar-power systems or home- and farm-scale wind turbines.

Meanwhile, at the Iowa Statehouse, the ever-present utility lobbyists exert an iron grip on legislators with a campaign of disinformation, making claims that they are working to protect ratepayers from increased energy bills, and that they can do a better job in a market environment free of government mandates.

As a believer in the power of the free market, I find this claim humorous – the day that I have a choice of which power company to buy from is the day we can have that discussion. Until then, utility companies remain state-sanctioned monopolies, with only as much concern for their customers as the government requires.

Despite the fact that several forward-looking Iowa rural electric co-ops and municipal utilities have proven that supporting their members and local residents who invest in renewable energy is good for local business, ratepayers and the environment, the REC lobby continues to be one of the most vehement opponents of local renewable-energy ownership. It argues that if it is required to buy locally produced renewable electricity, it would be too costly, despite mounting evidence to the contrary.

MidAmerican Energy, one of the most powerful and influential forces at the Statehouse, has led the effort to shut out small business and local ownership through the company’s close ties to leadership.

Like I said, go read the whole thing. Our Democratic-controlled legislature should be able to do better on energy policy.

From time to time I’m posting about the IA-03 primary at Daily Kos, MyDD and Open Left. If you’d like to join the conversation there, please leave a comment on the threads below my latest installment:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/…

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008…

http://www.openleft.com/showDi…

Thanks to record turnout at the Iowa Caucuses in January the Iowa Democratic Party has 60,000 new registrants. The Republicans gained 7,600 new registrants, while 49,000 people are no longer registered as no party.

This makes the current registration totals in Iowa as of March 1st: Democrats – 701,285; Republicans – 615,576; and 761,201 No Party.

This Democratic Wave should bode well for Democrats in the 2008 elections, as they look to expand majorities in the Iowa Senate and Iowa House, and compete for Congressional seats.

Democrat Bill Foster won today’s special election to serve out the remainder of this term representing Illinois’ 14th Congressional district:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyo…

Former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert resigned from the seat, forcing the special election.

The NRCC spent more than $1 million, about 20 percent of its cash on hand, to defend this red district, and still lost the seat.

Keep in mind that more than two dozen Republicans in the U.S. House are retiring this year, forcing the GOP to defend a lot of open seats. The DCCC’s fundraising is strong, putting Democrats in a good position to expand their majority in the House.

Anyone still worried that Republicans will be able to mount an effective challenge for Iowa’s third district in case Ed Fallon defeats Leonard Boswell in the primary?

What Big Tent Democrat (an Obama supporter) said:

So we are celebrating “democracy” in Wyoming today. The “will of the people?” Not hardly. Another travesty of the Democratic Party.

Do you know that if 8,000 voters come out in Wyoming today to select their 13 delegates that means that 615 Wyomingians will be selecting a delegate to our national convention (8000 divided by 13.) By contrast, when 4.4 million Californians voted in their primary, they selected 370 delegates, which is to say 1 delegate for every 11,892 Californian who voted.

The will of the people? Please never mention that phrase again when discussing the pledged delegate count.

So, one participant in the Wyoming caucuses today has as much say over our nomination as 19 Californians who voted in the primary (or 8.6 Iowans who came to the caucuses in January).

But Obama supporters, you keep chanting about how the lead in pledged delegates is the only factor superdelegates should keep in mind when it’s time to vote for our nominee.

I have been critical of the Iowa caucus system, even though some elements of the system favored my candidate. I don’t like the electoral college, even though it is possible that someday a Democrat may win 270 electoral votes despite losing the nationwide popular vote.

Big Tent Democrat is one of very few Obama supporters who acknowledges that certain elements of our nominating system are undemocratic, even though those elements favor his candidate.

UPDATE: In the comments below that thread on TalkLeft, user waldenpond wrote:

I have a spreadsheet with votes/dels etc. I have dels for red state/blue state. For the GE Clinton would has 78 to Obama’s 100 red.  Clinton 815 to Obama’s 83 for blue.  I have by state the number of votes it took to get the dels.  I do it because I find it interesting, but I don’t think any of it means anything.  Raw vote against dels.. Clinton 9289 votes per del.  Obama 8553 votes per del.

Interesting. So Clinton has won more than 700 more popular votes per delegate than Obama has. If he does very poorly in PA and in any FL re-vote, he could well end up losing the popular vote despite retaining his lead in pledged delegates.

with these pathetic comments picked up by the AP.

As Talking Points Memo notes, the full quotation from the Spencer Daily Reporter is even worse.

Here’s hoping King will get tired of serving in the House minority and leave Congress before too long.