As Chase Martyn reported for Iowa Independent, Ed Fallon officially announced on Wednesday that he will challenge Leonard Boswell for the Democratic nomination in Iowa’s third Congressional district.

Populista put up a diary here urging people to vote for Ed as Democracy for America’s “All-Star” candidate. I have already done so, and I hope you will too.

I’ll be writing more about this race in the coming months. For now, I want to briefly lay out the case for supporting Fallon’s challenge.

Leonard Boswell is a good person. I have voted for him every time and have contributed to his Congressional campaigns. However, he has been too willing to go along with the Bush administration on too many issues. He has voted to repeal the estate tax based on specious arguments from the Grover Norquist crowd. He voted for Bush’s horrible energy bill. He has voted to enable the Bush administration’s policies on Iraq and torture.

We have a chance to get a rock-solid progressive in this seat, and we should take it. While in the legislature, Ed Fallon had a 100 percent voting record on choice and labor issues, and was very strong on the environment and many other areas of importance.

Boswell sits on the Transportation Committee and has done nothing to help bring our national transportation policy back into balance. Fallon is talking about the need to get a handle on urban sprawl and invest in alternative forms of transportation as well as new road construction.

We are going to hear a lot from the Democratic Party establishment about Fallon supposedly being unelectable. I want those people to explain to me why Boswell’s winning margin in 2006 was so much less than Chet Culver’s winning margin in the counties that make up the third district.

Many Democrats, particularly progressives, simply do not feel that Boswell is representing our interests well enough.

Fallon has the potential to draw cross-over votes from independents and Republicans. He did it in the 2006 gubernatorial primary, and he can do it again. But just as important, he is a candidate Democrats can enthusiastically vote for.

Those who say that we can’t take a risk on replacing Boswell also need to explain their game plan for holding on to Iowa’s third district after the 2010 census. Iowa is going to lose a Congressional seat when the districts are redrawn. The most likely scenario I can see is that Boswell would retire in 2012, leaving us with no incumbent to run against Tom Latham or Steve King in the newly-drawn third district.

We are better off getting a new incumbent in place before that happens.

Finally, I believe that Fallon’s challenge will benefit Democrats even if he does not win the primary. As Chris Bowers reported last month at Open Left, Boswell voted against an Iraq funding bill for the first time ever after rumors about Fallon’s challenge started circulating.

I have also heard that Boswell recently signed onto a global-warming pledge that he refused to sign months earlier, when Congressmen Bruce Braley and Dave Loebsack backed it.

We’ve seen the voting records of other Democratic incumbents improve after progressives challenged them in primaries. Jane Harman and Ellen Tauscher of California come to mind. If Boswell does win the primary, I expect that his Congressional votes will better represent the will of his constituents.

If Fallon wins the primary, we will be favored to elect a strong progressive to this seat, given his base in Polk County and the expected high turnout for Democrats in a presidential election year.

I respect the views of Bleeding Heartland readers who are sticking with Boswell, but I urge you to consider the case for Fallon. If you already support Fallon, please consider donating to or volunteering for his campaign. They will need all hands on deck, since the party establishment will line up behind Boswell.

I watched the rerun of the debate last night and thought all three candidates did well enough. Apparently Frank Luntz’s focus group favored Edwards, but supporters of all three candidates had plenty to cheer on.

If you want to read why Clinton “rocked,” click on alegre’s diary with video clips:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyo…

If you want the pro-Obama version, Steven R has clips and analysis for you here:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyo…

Edwards fans will enjoy NCDemAmy’s diary, also with video clips:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/…

Maryland's Governor Martin O'Malley is being strongly urged by his top energy advisor to take aggressive steps to cut energy consumption, and the state should create a multimillion-dollar fund to give homeowners an array of incentives to use less power.

The blueprint, to be released by the Maryland Energy Administration, will offer 20 proposals to help O'Malley (D) deliver on his ambitious pledge to reduce the state's energy consumption by 15 percent in seven years and stave off rolling blackouts that experts predict could occur in three years.

The report recommends that the state encourage the fledgling solar and wind energy industries to invest in the region and help Maryland more than double its use of renewable power.

Iowa Governor Chet Culver has been a proponent of renewable energy, creating the Iowa Power Fund, the Iowa Office of Energy Independence, and saying he wants Iowa to become the renewable energy capital of the world.

Culver has made a goal for Iowa to produce enough wind energy by 2015 to power 500,000 homes and cut carbon emissions by more than 7 billion tons per year. It seems that a program like the one in Maryland would help Culver and Iowans reach this goal.

Instead there are plans to build coal-fired power plants in Marshalltown and Waterloo that would emit more carbon into the air.

If Culver was serious about making Iowa into the renewable energy capital, one would think he would be stressing cutting energy use.

Check out the Nevada progressive community blog My Silver State and the MyDD posts by Las Vegas resident and precinct chair desmoulins.

As I posted a few days ago, this is the time to take action to stop a new coal-fired power plant from being built in Marshalltown. Coal not only contributes to global warming, it also increases the rate of asthma in nearby residents, as well as mercury levels in fish.

The Iowa Utility Board will hold hearings starting tomorrow, January 14, at 10 am. The hearings will take place at the Whitehall Auditorium on the grounds of the Iowa Veterans Home (1301 Summit St, Marshalltown).

The invaluable noneed4thneed has information on the testimony of Iowa native James Hansen, a climate scientist from NASA.

After the jump I’m putting information about events this week organized by the Cedar Rapids-based environmental law group Plains Justice. For more on that group, check out their website.

If you attend any of these events, or hearings at the IUB, please put up a diary with your impressions.

If you ever want to look up which states are voting on which dates this year, click on this page at the Project Vote Smart site.  

I urge all of you to click on this diary by MyDD user Silver Spring, who analyzed the county-level results from Iowa and New Hampshire.

I am not convinced by all of the arguments in this diary, but it is a great piece of work. I have asked Silver Spring to cross-post here, so I can promote it to the front page. In the meantime, you all should head over to MyDD and read it for yourself.

I haven’t yet had a chance to dig into the county-level results from Iowa, so I greatly appreciate this effort.

This kind of in-depth analysis sets the blogs apart from superficial mainstream media coverage.

Thanks to Betsy for the roundup. -desmoinesdem

Once again the writers at the state community blogs are busy staying on top of local and state news and bringing local flavor to national news. It takes longer each week to pull this together because I find myself caught up in reading the excellent coverage provided by these state blogs.

Find an interesting post and jump in the conversation. If you don’t see your state represented here, check out the state blogroll at Open Left or MyDD.

The rest is after the jump.

Dennis Kucinich and some Republican I’ve never heard of demanded full hand recounts of the results from the New Hampshire primary, and they will get their wish.

I welcome this news. I doubt there were any serious irregularities in how votes were counted, but anything that restores people’s faith in the election process is good in my view.

In case you haven’t been following this story on other blogs, some Obama supporters have alleged that voting machines were rigged to hand victory to Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire.

Yesterday Bill Richardson announced he was ending his presidential run and dropping out of the race. Richardson was hoping to do well Nevada next week, but was polls weren't favorable. Richardson had nothing to gain to by getting blown out in Nevada. Plus, the New Mexico legislative session is starting up soon and he can get back to his duties as Governor.

Richardson was one of my final 3 choices. Out of all of the candidates, I agreed most with his plan for Iraq. Richardson understands that US troops in Iraq are targets, stuck in the middle of a civil war, and unfortunately are adding fuel to the fire over there. He also was very strong on education issues. He had the strongest position against NCLB, saying the law is unworkable and needed to be tossed out. He pushed for a minimum wage for teachers of $40,000.

In the end, Richardson's campaign was too focused on the issues and lacked an overriding theme. Richardson should have used his background as a diplomat and made diplomacy the them of this campaign. He could have created a vision of bringing people on all sides together to successfully end the war in Iraq, solve immigration, improve education. Instead he focused on his plans to solve these issues.

Oh, my. Watch this ad Mike Huckabee is currently running in Michigan (hat tip to noneed4thneed).

Key line:

I believe most Americans want their next President to remind them of they guy they work with, not the guy who laid them off.

Michigan is must-win for Mitt Romney, whose father used to be governor of the state. That line should be devastating for him.

Huckabee has long been despised by the Club for Growth set. He wisely decided that as a presidential candidate, he would do better to advocate for middle-class interests rather than pandering to the business wing of the GOP. Noneed4thneed put up this amazing clip of Huckabee on Hardball a few months ago. It’s worth watching. I still can’t believe a Republican presidential candidate is willing to say his party should stop being “a wholly-owned subsidiary of Wall Street and the corporations.”

If you missed this a few weeks ago, take Politico’s “populist pop quiz” and try to guess which quotations are from Huckabee and which are from John Edwards.

I do worry about the prospect of running against Huckabee. He is a strong communicator, and he could pull Reagan Democrats his way.

On the other hand, a lot of moderate Republicans would probably vote Democrat if he were the nominee. Also, it shouldn’t be hard for our candidate to make the public understand what a truly awful idea the “fair tax” is.

I'm not watching, but if you are, please share your impressions of that crowd.

While I still think Edwards would be our best candidate against the Republicans, lately I've been thinking that if we only could choose among the front-runners, Obama would do better against Huckabee, while Hillary might do better against McCain. Either of them would crush Romney. What do you think?

UPDATE: I caught most of the rerun on Fox. Apparently the focus group liked Thompson, which amazes me. Huckabee is clearly the superior communicator in my mind. He has a talent for keeping your attention without overdoing it.

MyDD user desmoulins, who has been trained as a temporary precinct chair for the upcoming Nevada caucuses, posted this useful diary on the differences between the Nevada caucus rules and the ones drafted by the Iowa Democratic Party.

I encourage you all to click the link and read his diary, along with the discussion thread. We would benefit from incorporating some of the changes Nevada Democrats have made.

One key difference is that in Nevada, only supporters of non-viable candidates will be able to switch to a different corner during the realignment period. That will cut down on the gamesmanship whereby precinct captains of viable candidates direct a small number of people to a rival corner in order to change the delegate count.

UPDATE: desmoulins put up this interesting post about the campaign on the ground in Nevada:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008…

It’s one of those rare days when I largely agree with David Yepsen’s latest column: Parties must probe caucus complaints, make fixes. He points out that any problems with the way the caucuses were run will be fodder for those who will try to deprive Iowa of first-in-the-nation status for the next campaign.

Already the Republican Party will be looking to ditch Iowa, because the GOP establishment can’t stand Mike Huckabee. If Hillary Clinton becomes the Democratic nominee and wins, or if Barack Obama becomes the Democratic nominee and loses, the Democratic Party establishment will also have the knives out for Iowa.

Yepsen suggests moving the caucuses to Saturday at 5 pm, a time when fewer shift workers are on duty and young families may find it easier to get a baby-sitter. I would support that change.

Yepsen lists some of the alleged problems with the caucuses, but he left out some very disturbing problems I’ve heard about. One of the most troubling reports, written by observers in a precinct on Des Moines’ south side, maintained that counting was rushed to prevent second-tier candidates from becoming viable.

I was also sorry to hear some accounts of bullying the supporters of non-viable candidates. Daily Kos user neia was disturbed by what happened at the caucus in Strawberry Point (northeast Iowa). While I am sure this is the exception, not the rule, the Iowa Democratic Party should train precinct chairs to prevent anyone from exerting undue pressure on caucus-goers during the realignment period.

UPDATE: This Daily Kos diary includes more allegations about irregularities:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyo…

Several people have asked me what happened at my precinct caucus. I told part of the story last week, but in case anyone is interested, the longer version is after the jump.

Use this as an open thread to tell the story of your precinct caucus, whether or not there were problems with the way it operated.

Barack Obama is sitting pretty ten days before the Nevada caucuses, having snagged the endorsements of the Nevada chapter of the Service Employees International Union as well as the Culinary workers and their parent union, UNITE HERE. UNITE HERE is the first national union to endorse Obama.

In September, the national SEIU was very close to endorsing Edwards, but backed off and left the decision to state chapters. Since then, 11 state chapters of the SEIU have backed Edwards, and four or five have backed Obama.

We are seeing the consequences of Iowa failing to deliver for John Edwards. The Nevada unions were ready to jump in for him if he had won here. He also would have been helped in Nevada by the California SEIU, which has already endorsed him. But now that the Nevada SEIU is behind Obama, state chapters backing other candidates can’t send their members to campaign in Nevada.

Edwards was never likely to do well in New Hampshire, but he would have had a real shot at Nevada with union backing. Now he is forced to focus on South Carolina, where he is substantially behind Obama and Clinton in the polls.

If Obama does win the nomination and the presidency, I seriously doubt he will do much for labor unions. That would interfere with his posturing as the bipartisan president pushing a unity agenda.

But it isn’t the first time labor unions have picked the candidate they viewed as most likely to win, rather than the candidate most likely to become their champion. That’s the way the world works.

UPDATE: Over at MyDD, Jonathan Singer wonders if these endorsements post a danger to Obama by raising his expectations in Nevada, where he has trailed Clinton in the polls:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008…

SECOND UPDATE: Daily Kos user greenmountainboy was just in Nevada and has this to say:

The union workers and precinct captains are PISSED that their leaders pulled this crap of not supporting Edwards. They continue to run house parties for him and love the man. The power structure (Clinton and Obama) know that if Edwards gets any roots in ANY ONE of these states they are in for a real fight. If that happens watch how quickly Clinton and O’Baby join forces for “change”.

Well, the results coming in have been surprising so far, at least on the Democratic side of things.  Clinton up with a quarter of the vote in.  Was there anyone predicting that?

You can track live results here from CNN.com.  Jerome Armstrong’s got an interesting discussion going here saying that with Clinton making the contest this close in NH that we’ve still got a tough race going on to February 5th…and even beyond.

So, what’re your thoughts?  How fluid are things?  What’s next?

I got this e-mail from a fellow Sierra Club member:

Now that the caucuses are behind us, there is another way to get involved in energy and environmental issues.  We have a special treat for you this month – international global warming spokesman and Iowa native Dr. James Hansen of NASA will be returning to Iowa the week of January 14th to testify against the construction of a new coal burning power plant in Marshalltown.  We need your help today to convince Governor Culver and the Iowa Utilities Board to listen to the scientific experts, and the people of Iowa, and reject the construction of this major new source of pollution.  Our leaders should choose a clean, efficient energy future that will help Iowa’s economy grow.  They should put off any decision on dirty, expensive coal until we determine if efficiency and renewable power are sufficient to power the state.  Please take thirty seconds to contact the Iowa Utilities Board by clicking on the link below:

http://capwiz.com/iowacci/issu…

Then let us know you wrote the Iowa Utilities Board by just replying to this email (mark.kresowik AT sierraclub.org).  An even more powerful action would be writing a letter in hard copy and faxing it to the Governor’s Office at 515-281-6611 (fax) or sending it to:

Governor Chet Culver and Lt. Governor Patty Judge

State Capitol

Des Moines, IA 50319

515-281-5211 (phone)

Best yet, come testify in person to the Iowa Utilities Board starting at 10:00 AM on Monday, January 14th at the Whitehall Auditorium on the grounds of the Iowa Veterans Home (1301 Summit St, Marshalltown) .  

According to a recent survey nearly four out of five Iowans think that “Iowa should focus on increased (energy) conservation steps and more fuel efficiency to reduce demand for electricity before it constructs new coal-fired power plants” (http://plainsjustice.org/survey-iowa-voters-say-no-new-coal/). Coal burning power plants are the single largest source of global warming pollution in the United States and Iowa is over-dependent on this dirty form of energy.  The first step we need to take to combat global warming is to stop the construction of proposed coal plants in Marshalltown and Waterloo and invest in energy efficiency and renewable energy.  The Governor should continue his pledge to make Iowa the renewable energy capitol of the world and stop these plants.  Please contact the Iowa Utilities Board and the Governor today:

http://capwiz.com/iowacci/issu…

You can also hear Dr. Hansen and other expert witnesses for the Office of the Consumer Advocate and Plains Justice – who have concluded unanimously that the Marshalltown plant is unnecessary and will in fact put Iowa ratepayers at far greater risk than more prudent alternatives – in person on January 16th at 7:00 PM at the State Historical Building (600 East Locust) in Des Moines or January 17th at 7:00 PM at Old Brick (26 E. Market) in Iowa City.

So it’s the day before the important New Hampshire primary. What is the political press obsessing about? Whether Hillary Clinton teared up and what the other candidates had to say about it.

It goes back to what CBS correspondent Chip Reid revealed not long ago:

Let’s face it – a lot of what political reporters report on is mistakes.

Please, journalists, stop insulting our intelligence. I don’t care if you think getting emotional is a mistake. It’s ridiculous for you to ask other candidates to comment on Hillary’s emotion. The only purpose of a question like that is to trick them into committing a gaffe.

None of this trivia has anything to do with who would be the best president. Try reporting on some issues for once.

Last month I put up this post on Republican culture, inspired by an article about a Republican focus group watching a presidential debate.

Reading this piece by Joe Klein today, I noticed that the Republican focus group watching the latest debate preferred Mitt Romney to John McCain. Among other things,

They just adored his position on illegal immigration (their dials plummeted when McCain said we had to be “humane.”)

No, we sure wouldn’t want to be humane in our approach to a complicated issue affecting the lives of millions. That’s Republican culture in a nutshell.

There has been a flurry of blog posts and news stories talking about the entrance polling and the results of the caucuses.  The basics we know include things like record turnout and a surge in the number of youth showing up to the Democratic caucuses, as well as ‘no party’ folks changing their registration to Democrat.

I don’t have the capacity nor the will power to significantly examine all of the results county by county, candidate by candidate.  But I can direct you towards some very interesting information.

First of all, if you’d like some detailed results and would like to see some maps, feel free to check out CaucusResults.com which has the detailed information about the results courtesy of the Iowa Democratic Party.  If you provided some information to the party prior to caucus night by visiting IowaCaucusResults.com then you should’ve received an email notification with a password so you could log in.  If you didn’t and would like to be able to see the information, feel free to email me and I can get you logged in.

Secondly, one of the big things that we’ve seen talked about is the amount of youth turnout for the caucuses.  Whether you call youth 17-24 year olds or 17-29 year olds it seems pretty clear that folks my age showed up and participated.  Iowa Student Public Interest Research Group (PIRG) put out a release talking about the numbers (which can be found here) and it clearly shows how the youth support was another cushion of support for Barack Obama.  The Register examined the same thing here, while also noting the evangelical Christian support that helped Huckabee.  The Register also provides a county map that shows which candidate won which county, including counties that are “ties” (at least according to percentage totals).  The breakdown follows like this:

• Barack Obama: 41 counties
• John Edwards: 29 counties
• Hillary Clinton: 25 counties
• Ties: 4 counties

Looking specifically at the four counties where there were ties, they were ties because the number of delegates for first place were evenly divided.  Three were tied for Clinton and Edwards; one was split for Clinton and Obama.

Finally, and I think this is one of most fascinating posts and discussion about the caucus results, go over to the Daily Yonder and read their post about how Democratic and Republican candidates did in rural Iowa.  Edwards’ strategy focused heavily on rural Iowa, and while it paid off for him a bit, it wasn’t the deciding fact simply because of the turnout Barack Obama was able to bring about in both urban and rural Iowa.  Fascinating piece of information alert:

“Both Edwards and Clinton won more votes in rural Iowa than in urban Iowa.”

I’ll leave that little bit of information to you guys to figure out what it means in the grand scheme of things in this presidential race.  Any other interesting demographics or information you think we should talk about?