As DrinksGreenTea wrote in the diaries, Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy is the latest big name to get behind Barack Obama’s presidential bid.

Clearly a significant chunk of the Democratic establishment does not want to see the Clintons back in charge. Also, Obama now has the backing of Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick as well as both U.S. senators from the state.

Rumors continue to circulate about Al Gore endorsing Obama, but I’ve seen no confirmation of that.

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton secured the backing of Florida Senator Bill Nelson shortly before that state’s primary. Her campaign is already calling on the DNC to seat Florida’s delegates despite the state’s flagrant violation of the rules.

Perhaps more significantly for Hillary, the American Nurses’ Association just endorsed her. That group represents the 2.9 million registered nurses across the country, and the endorsement will bolster Clinton’s argument that she has the superior health care plan.

My money is still on Clinton to win the nomination, but Obama’s convincing victory in South Carolina suggests that he is not out of the running either.

The latest research suggests that exposure to lead may diminish the functioning of the aging brain decades later.

The good news is that Americans’ exposure to lead has decreased markedly since lead was removed from paint and gasoline, beginning in the 1970s.

The bad news is that too many children who live in older buildings are still exposed to lead. We already know that lead poisoning can cause mental retardation. Now it appears that even children who appear to be unaffected could suffer adverse consequences from the exposure as they age.

Republicans, remember that next time you feel like mocking a Democratic proposal to test children for lead exposure.  

Tom Vilsack wrote an op-ed in the Des Moines Register on Sunday about global warming. For him, the answer is conserve energy, invest in biofuels and renewable energy, and develop better technology for coal-fired and nuclear power plants.

Everyone interested in a comprehensive solution to global warming should read the report Growing Cooler: The Evidence on Urban Development and Climate Change.

How we design our communities can dramatically increase or decrease our country’s carbon footprint. If we don’t consider these factors, sprawling development could wipe out any reduction in greenhouse gases we get from energy-efficiency and cleaner energy sources.

I highly recommend this report to Vilsack and other smart people who like to delve into policy details.

Great letter in the Des Moines Register on Sunday:

Thank goodness for Christopher Rants. As I drive down the highway smelling the stench from the hog lots, watching the filthy water roll under the bridge, worrying if my kids will fall behind as their schools fall apart, wondering if my elderly mother is receiving quality care and planning how to survive if I lose my job in this recession, Rants is leading the charge against gay marriage. Talk about a profile in courage.

Keep up the great work, Christopher!

David Yepsen has a pretty good column in Sunday’s Des Moines Register: Stimulus deal might do harm. A one-time tax rebate didn’t fix the economy when Gerald Ford was president, and it won’t fix the economy now.

Yepsen doesn’t mention some of the other things wrong with this package–namely, that the Republicans got the “business incentives” they were looking for, while Democrats “dropped calls for increases in food stamps and an extension of unemployment compensation”.

To his credit, John Edwards denounced this charade: “This is another example of Washington deserting working people and the middle class.”

I am not aware of any statement from Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama criticizing the bogus “stimulus package.”

The job creation plan Edwards announced last month would actually stimulate the economy.

Clinton and Obama have also released economic stimulus packages, and my impression is that Clinton’s is a little better than Obama’s. But neither of them seems willing to call out their fellow members of he Congressional club for agreeing to George Bush’s sham.

Although Edwards is not going to win the Democratic nomination, I want him to stay in the race as long as he is speaking truths that Obama and Clinton avoid.

I don’t think anyone predicted the magnitude of Obama’s win in South Carolina, with 55 percent of the vote to 27 percent for Clinton and 18 percent for Edwards. Not only did Obama nearly double Clinton’s percentage of the total vote, the youth turnout tripled, and two-thirds of young voters chose Obama.

The total turnout exceeded 500,000, and Obama alone got more votes than the total turnout in the 2004 Democratic primary in South Carolina.

An estimated 155,000 more black voters turned out yesterday than in the 2004 primary.

Also, someone pointed out in the comments at MyDD that Obama got more votes yesterday in South Carolina than John McCain and Mike Huckabee’s combined total in the GOP primary last weekend.

I am shocked that the total turnout in the Democratic primary exceeded the turnout in the GOP primary in a state as conservative as South Carolina.  

This week’s round-up once again brought to us by Betsy Muse of BlueNC.

On the eve of the South Carolina primary, those of us near the state are busy canvassing, calling and doing everything we can to stay on top of the local news. Earlier today I pulled up every online newspaper I could find listed for the state and found that the local news was doing a better job than the national media at portraying the race for the Democratic presidential nomination as a three person race.

John Edwards had plenty of press in the local news with at least one or two of the larger papers touting his rise in the polls and a couple of the smaller ones still reporting last week’s news. It was interesting to see that some papers showed only pictures of Clinton and Edwards and at least one paper showed only Barack Obama. Since online “front pages” change frequently, I obviously only had a snapshot of what was being shown at that particular time. However, if it was indicative of the mood of voters in South Carolina, might the national press and the pundits that bloviate therein be out of touch with what’s really going on in South Carolina? I guess we’ll find out on Saturday.

In the meantime, your bloggers at the 50 State Blog Network have been busy.

Your roundup for this week is after the jump.

Last weekend a friend and fellow Edwards precinct captain left a message for me saying he'd been polled on the Boswell-Fallon race. On Wednesday evening, as I was cooking dinner, I got the same call. About an hour after that, the Obama precinct captain in my neighborhood called to let me know that she wants to volunteer for Fallon. She had just gotten the same survey call, which jogged her memory that she'd been meaning to call me about volunteering.

It was a long survey. I took notes for about half the call, but I had to put down my pencil from time to time, because my kids were jumping and trying to climb all over me, and I was afraid one of them would grab the pencil and get hurt. After the call I jotted down notes on other questions I could remember. If you've gotten this call, please leave a comment with any questions I have forgotten.

I'm putting as much as I can remember about the poll after the jump. I figured that Boswell's campaign was paying for the survey, based on the type of questions asked, and the fact that there were more questions asked about Boswell than about Fallon.

Just to make sure, I called Ed Fallon, and he confirmed that his campaign did not commission this survey and does not have any poll in the field right now.

If you don't care to read the whole extended entry, here's the summary. The poll asks a lot of questions about how Boswell is doing and what the respondent thinks about Boswell on various issues. All of the votes Fallon has criticized are mentioned in the survey, and respondents are asked whether they agree with Boswell's or Fallon's position. At various points during the survey, respondents are asked if they would vote for Fallon or Boswell if the primary election were held today.

The poll tests both positive and negative messages about Boswell, asking if the respondent agrees or if the statement would affect their likelihood of voting for Boswell. Interestingly, the survey did not test negative messages about Fallon. I kept waiting for questions about whether it bothered me that Fallon supported Nader in 2000, or was too liberal to win a general election, or whatever, but they were not in this survey. This was not a persuasion call against Fallon.

As far as I can tell, the Boswell campaign is trying to figure out which of Fallon's criticisms have the potential to hurt the incumbent, and which can be safely ignored.  

Follow me after the jump for more details.

The Iowa Environmental Council and about 20 of its member organizations held a lobby day at the state capitol on Thursday.

I missed the press conference at which IEC executive director Marian Riggs Gelb announced the council’s legislative priorities, but I received a copy of her statement. I’ve put almost the full text (minus a few welcoming remarks and introductions of IEC staff and board members) after the jump.

I was way off on my Nevada predictions, but I didn't do too badly on the GOP results in South Carolina.

Please put your predictions for the Democratic South Carolina primary in the comments.

This week's polls have shown Edwards gaining, especially among whites. The big question mark is, will the Obama campaign be able to produce record black turnout, giving him a double-digit victory?

I'm guessing they will. My prediction: Obama 45, Clinton 33, Edwards 22. 

Wednesday’s Des Moines Register contained this article on the “TIME-21” plan that the Iowa Department of Transportation has submitted to the legislature.

TIME-21 is short for “Transportation Investment Moves the Economy in the 21st Century.”

The DOT’s plan for the next two decades would spend an additional $4 billion on road construction and repairs, while spending no additional funds on “public transit, passenger and freight railroads, commuter rail service, walking and biking trails, aviation, or other options.”

To the Register’s credit, they gave space to opposing views:

“It’s unfortunate that we are designating transportation funds to meet the needs of the past,” said Stephanie Weisenbach, program coordinator for 1000 Friends of Iowa, a citizens’ group that promotes sustainable development and responsible land use.

“We know that thoughts about how to move people and goods are changing.”

She points to research by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency showing transportation as the fastest-growing source of greenhouse gas emissions, accounting for about 27 percent of total U.S. emissions.

She contends Iowa needs more flexibility in financing transportation alternatives because money from the state’s road use tax fund can be spent only on road projects.

Not increasing alternatives to cars and trucks “would be a fairly big mistake, just given the interest we are seeing in reducing greenhouse gas emissions,” said Mark Kresowik, a conservation organizer for the Sierra Club in Iowa. He said Iowa is a big producer, per capita, of greenhouse gases because of its heavy reliance on coal, oil and fertilizer and because of long distances that motorists travel in a rural state.

By the way, Representative Geri Huser of Altoona, who chairs the House Transportation Committee, offered the most ludicrous straw man argument I’ve heard in a while:

Huser said she wants to explore alternatives to Iowans’ reliance on automobiles, but she has to be realistic.

“I have to tell you I have not had any legislator come up to me and say, ‘We would rather not fix roads that are a problem, and I want to focus all of our resources on trails and bus transportation,’ ” Huser said.

Representative Huser, no one is talking about focusing “all of our resources” on alternative transportation. We are talking about adjusting a plan that currently calls for spending $4 billion on roads and nothing on other kinds of transportation.

Bicyclists and bus riders also want roads to be fixed, obviously, but we don’t need to do that to the exclusion of any other transportation investments.

Here are a bunch of good links on the benefits of a balanced transportation policy.

If you care about this issue, write a letter to the editor or join one of the groups fighting for sanity in our transportation planning: 1000 Friends of Iowa, Sierra Club of Iowa, or the Iowa Bicycle Coalition.

UPDATE: DOT Director Nancy Richardson responds in Friday’s Register, but doesn’t get the point:

“We can’t have the road system solve the greenhouse-gas emission problem. It’s not emitting the gas, the dangerous fumes – the vehicles are. If we really want to make a difference, we need to focus on the vehicles that are driving on those roads.”

But in fact, if we don’t get a handle on our urban planning and transportation priorities, then we won’t be able to solve the greenhouse-gas emission problem:

In a comprehensive review of dozens of studies, published by the Urban Land Institute, the researchers conclude that urban development is both a key contributor to climate change and an essential factor in combating it.

They warn that if sprawling development continues to fuel growth in driving, the projected 59 percent increase in the total miles driven between 2005 and 2030 will overwhelm expected gains from vehicle efficiency and low-carbon fuels. Even if the most stringent fuel-efficiency proposals under consideration are enacted, notes co-author Steve Winkelman, “vehicle emissions still would be 40 percent above 1990 levels in 2030 – entirely off-track from reductions of 60-80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 required for climate protection.”

“Curbing emissions from cars depends on a three-legged stool: improved vehicle efficiency, cleaner fuels, and a reduction in driving,” said lead author Reid Ewing, Research Professor at the National Center for Smart Growth, University of Maryland. “The research shows that one of the best ways to reduce vehicle travel is to build places where people can accomplish more with less driving.”

In other words, a transportation policy agenda focused solely on road-building will fail to reduce miles driven, which needs to be a key element in our response to global warming.

I doubt I'll even bother to watch the repeat, but if you caught the Republicans debating, use this thread to “document the atrocities,” as Atrios would say.

Secretary of State Mike Mauro wants every precinct in Iowa to have an optical scanner that reads paper ballots. Legislators should listen to him, even though the plan would cost $9.7 million, according to the Des Moines Register.

A new state law says there has to be a paper trail, leading some to call for retrofitting touchscreen machines with windows that would let voters view a “receipt” to confirm their votes. This “verified paper audit trail” would cost about $2 million to put in place, but I’m with Representative Pam Jochum of Dubuque, who says it would be a “total waste of money” to retrofit touchscreen voting machines.

Also,

Mauro pointed out Wednesday that any such system could be obsolete in two years because of pending federal legislation that could change requirements for voting machines.

Iowa needs to find a way to fund Mauro’s proposal, so that we have secure voting procedures and paper ballots that can be recounted if necessary.

Although no voting system is perfect, the recent recount in New Hampshire showed lower error rates in precincts using optical scanners than in precincts that counted ballots by hand on election night.

Touchscreen voting is a disaster in the making, not only because of the potential for tampering but also because it leaves nothing to be recounted in case of a disputed election.

By the way, I had previously reported that New Hampshire would recount all the ballots from the recent primary, but in fact Dennis Kucinich only put in $27,000, enough to recount about 40 percent of the ballots. The recount has now ended, having revealed no significant changes in vote totals for the candidates. Click the link for more details.

The Democratic candidates for Presidents outraised Republicans by about 47%.

The Democratic committees (DCCC, DSCC, and DNC) outraised their Republican counterparts by 4%.  (With the DNC dragging the other two down.)

And now from the Register, we find that state Democrats are doing even better.

Incumbent House Democrats altogether drummed up $1.1 million, based on reports on file Wednesday, while House Republicans raised $721,000.

In the Senate, incumbent Democrats collected $448,000 in reports on file while Republicans pulled in $371,000.For the statewide parties, new reports show the Iowa Democratic Party has $669,000 in cash on hand in its state account, and the Republican Party of Iowa has $49,000.

Because Iowa has basically no campaign finance laws, all of this money is essentially interchangeable.  That means that, overall, Democrats are outraising Republicans in state money $2.22 million to $1.14 million, giving us just short of double their resources.

Dwayne Alons:

“We shouldn't be as concerned, actually, about warming, especially now that we have modern refrigeration and air conditioning,” Alons said Tuesday.

Oh.  My.  God. 

The Iowa Environmental Council’s Lobby Day is Thursday, January 24, in the State Capitol Building rotunda, from 9 am to 3 pm.

If you’ve got time to drop by during those hours, I encourage you to do so. Advocates for many good environmental causes will be educating legislators and the media about their issues.

These organizations will be represented at the lobby day, and their staff or volunteers would be happy to meet citizens who want to get involved:

1000 Friends of Iowa

American Institute of Architects, Iowa Chapter

Center for Energy and Environmental Education (CEEE)

Center on Sustainable Communities

Environment Iowa

Environmental Advocates

Iowa River Greenbelt Resource Trust

Iowa Environmental Council

Iowa Farmers Union

Iowa Global Warming

Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation

Iowa Policy Project

Iowa Recycling Association

Iowa Renewable Energy Association (I-RENEW)

Iowa Rivers Revival

Iowa Whitewater Coalition

Izaak Walton League

Raccoon River Watershed Association

Trees Forever

I shook my head when I read this story in Tuesday’s Register about the fraternity that shut down its U of I chapter because several members were arrested for dealing marijuana:

Four Delta Upsilon members were charged in December with drug violations after police raided the fraternity house and found 650 grams of marijuana, cash, packing materials, scales and drug-deal ledgers, court records state.

Hey, college students: you may think pot should be legal, and I may think pot should be legal, but pot is not legal, and selling pot is definitely not legal. Keeping detailed ledgers of your transactions is not a good idea.

These students who were arrested should know that it could have been worse, however. The year after I graduated from college, two guys who lived in my dorm were arrested for selling drugs to a fellow student who had named them when he got caught with possession. They also had detailed business ledgers on their computers, which the police confiscated.

What they didn’t realize, and probably no one in my dorm realized, was that an elementary school was up the street a few blocks. Most people living in the dorm would never have a reason to walk in that direction, because the rest of campus was the other way. But the state where I went to college had one of those laws doubling prison terms for drug offenses committed within X feet of a school.

The guys were not selling to grade school kids. They were just making some extra cash selling to other college students. But they went away for a long, long time.

Well, well, well. The Newton Speedway didn’t miraculously solve that town’s problems, so now there is a drive to build a casino next to the racetrack in the name of economic development.

Iowa has too many casinos already–20 according to the Des Moines Register article linked above. The Iowa Racing and Gaming Commission should say no to this and all other applications for casino licenses in the future.

How will a casino in Newton help the community? More likely it will just drain the wallets of locals whose family incomes already took a hit after Maytag shut down. People love talking about the jobs created by casinos, but they don’t like talking about the social problems that come along with increased gambling.

The advocates of this proposal say the location, visible from I-80, would be visible to some 10 million people who drive on that stretch of road every year. But I suspect a casino in Newtwon would primarily pull gamblers away from existing casinos in central, eastern and southern Iowa.

In case you don’t normally read the Des Moines Register, Marc Hansen’s column on Ed Fallon in Tuesday’s edition was pretty good.

My only gripe relates to this passage:

Fallon hasn’t had many so-called “real jobs.” Like optometrist or truck driver, as opposed to “field canvasser” or “inner-city community organizer.”

I like Hansen, but this is a cheap shot. Why is engaging the public on political issues any less of a “real job” than driving a truck?

I’m sick of journalists denigrating political work and citizen empowerment.

I learned a lot from this diary by interguru: There Go the Fluorescent Bulb Savings.

Everyone, make it a New Year’s resolution to switch off your electronics when you’re not using them, or put them on a power strip that can be switched off overnight.