I got an e-mail today from Democracy for America, confirming that they are backing Ed Fallon in the primary to represent Iowa’s third Congressional district. Excerpt:

Last Tuesday, our Primaries Matter campaign delivered results and helped lead Donna Edwards to a resounding 24-point victory over Bush-Democrat Al Wynn in MD-04.

Ed Fallon is the next DFA-List endorsement and he’s taking on Bush-Democrat, Rep. Leonard Boswell in IA-03.

Contribute $20.08 right now and support a Democrat with the backbone to stand up for progressive values.

http://www.actblue.com/page/su…

Ed Fallon is a true progressive and he has a record of beating out-of-touch Democrats in Iowa. In 1992, he beat 10-year incumbent Gary Sherzan with 63% of the vote and became a State Representative. When the conservative party establishment tried to primary Ed out of the state legislature, Ed won again with 68% of the vote.

Now, with your help, Ed will beat Bush-Democrat Leonard Boswell. Here’s a breakdown of some of the important differences between them.

The chart didn’t come through well when I copied and pasted. Here’s what it showed in Fallon’s column:

The War in Iraq: opposed Bush’s war from the start and believes we need a more diplomatic approach to foreign policy, not just in Iraq but throughout the Middle East

Campaign Funding: has never accepted money from lobbyists

Spying on Americans: opposes Bush’s warrantless wiretapping of innocent Americans

The Climate Crisis: supports a moratorium on new coal-fired power plants and has lead the fight against government handouts to big business in Iowa

No Child Left Behind: is against this unfunded, ineffective Bush-mandate, and will work to get it repealed

On those same issues, here’s what Democracy for America listed in the Boswell column:

-voted for the Iraq War and has continued to support additional funding with no timetable to bring the troops home

-accepts donations from lobbyists

-voted for increased warrantless surveillance on the American people

-voted to provide $14 billion in tax breaks and incentives for oil and gas companies and supports greater use of coal

-voted for [No Child Left Behind] and did not fund it or attempt to repeal it

I don’t know how many members Democracy for America has, but it will be interesting to see how much money this appeal raises for Fallon’s campaign. Donna Edwards’ convincing victory may make people more willing to invest in another primary challenger.

By the way, John Deeth has a piece up at Iowa Independent about the role Boswell and 20 other “Blue dog” Democrats played in yesterday’s House debate on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Deeth’s piece linked to a post by Matt Browner Hamlin, who confirmed that all 21 House Democrats who cooperated with the Republicans on FISA have received contributions from the telecom industry. Boswell has received $5,000 in campaign contributions from AT&T.

UPDATE: I checked the page at ActBlue that Democracy for America set up for donations to Fallon. As of 2:25 pm, this appeal has raised $10,417 for Fallon from 305 donors. That’s impressive. I’m sure the total will increase substantially this evening, which is when many people have their internet time.

SECOND UPDATE: As of 10:30 pm, this appeal has raised $20,024 for Fallon from 582 donors. That’s an average of just under $35 per donor. Looks like a lot of those people will be willing and able to donate again before this race is over.

Thomas Beaumont wrote this article in the Sunday Des Moines Register on Iowa’s superdelegates. The whole article is worth reading, and it includes this useful sidebar:

Iowa is expected to have 12 superdelegates to the Democratic National Convention in Denver in August. They include all four Democratic members of Congress, Iowa’s governor and its six members of the Democratic National Committee. The 12th superdelegate will be chosen at the Iowa Democratic Party’s state convention in June.

Below are the names of those superdelegates, their titles and whom they have endorsed for the 2008 presidential nomination.

SUPPORTING HILLARY CLINTON

LEONARD BOSWELL, U.S. House member from Des Moines.

MIKE GRONSTAL, Iowa Senate majority leader from Council Bluffs and member of the DNC as chairman of Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee.

SANDY OPSTVEDT, Iowa labor union leader and at-large DNC member from Story City.

SARAH SWISHER, Iowa City nurse, labor union leader and member of the DNC as state Democratic Party vice chairwoman. Endorsed Edwards, but has backed Clinton since Edwards left the race.

SUPPORTING BARACK OBAMA

CHET CULVER, Iowa governor, endorsed Obama on Thursday.

MIKE FITZGERALD, Iowa treasurer and member of the DNC as member of National Association of State Democratic Treasurers’ executive committee.

DAVID LOEBSACK, U.S. House member from Mount Vernon.

UNCOMMITTED

SCOTT BRENNAN, Des Moines lawyer and member of the DNC as Iowa Democratic Party chairman.

BRUCE BRALEY, U.S. House member from Waterloo. Endorsed John Edwards in December, but is uncommitted since Edwards’ departure from the race.

TOM HARKIN, U.S. senator

RICHARD MACHACEK, Winthrop farmer and at-large DNC member. Was a longtime Edwards supporter, but now is uncommitted.

It was news to me that Swisher had committed to Clinton, although I’m not surprised, since Clinton has a better health care plan than Obama. I wonder if the other former Edwards supporters will be influenced by a possible Edwards endorsement, or if they will wait and see.

If you want to know what other states’ superdelegates are doing, keep an eye on the “Superdelegate transparency project”, which Chris Bowers announced yesterday at OpenLeft:

We are compiling the district-by-district results of the popular vote and pledged delegates, and then tracking these results against how superdelegates are currently pledged (or have publicly endorsed a candidate), and how they eventually vote. The aim of this project is to open up the Democratic nomination process, and to gauge what effect the superdelegates have on the nomination.

Bowers has a secondary goal, which is to persuade superdelegates to back the candidate who wins the pledged delegates and the overall popular vote:

Until a single leader in the popular vote and pledged delegate count emerges at the end of the primary and caucus season, superdelegates should not make a firm commitment to vote for any candidate at the convention other than the popular choice of their constituents. Endorsements can be made, but in order to uphold the principles of democracy within the Democratic Party, there should be no firm commitments from any given superdelegate to vote for anyone at the convention other than the candidate chosen by the constituents of that superdelegate.

[…]my democratic standard for super delegates is that if one candidate wins pledged delegates and popular votes according to all counts, then all super delegates should vote for that candidate. However, since we won’t know if a candidate achieves that standard until the end of the primary / caucus season, and since it is possible no candidate will ever achieve that standard, then in the interim all super delegates should pledge to vote their districts.

Will Iowa’s superdelegates go with the winner of all pledged delegates and the overall popular vote, even if that candidate is not their first choice? The Des Moines Register article includes the following quotes:

“If it’s as close as it stands today, I would still be casting my vote for Hillary,” said Sandy Opstvedt, a labor union leader and superdelegate from Story City.

Sounds like Opstvedt is leaving the door open to switching to Obama, if he becomes the clear leader in pledged delegates.

Governor Chet Culver, who endorsed Obama last week, cited Obama’s victory in the Iowa caucuses as a factor in his decision:

“I do think it matters too that Iowans have spoken loudly and clearly,” Culver said in a Des Moines Register interview Friday. “And because of that, in part, I felt compelled to also stand with him.”

“I’d love it if every superdelegate supported Barack Obama,” Culver also said, adding that he had begun making calls to the others.

Does that mean that Culver would not switch, even if Clinton finished the primaries with more popular votes and more pledged delegates than Obama?

Meanwhile, Iowa Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal

declined to comment on whether he would consider changing his support if Obama gathered more delegates than Clinton as the result of the upcoming nominating contests.

Gronstal said he can justify supporting Clinton in part because she got the most support, 43 percent, in Pottawattamie County on caucus night.

“Representing my constituents, I can make the case that’s exactly what I’m doing,” Gronstal said.

Representative Leonard Boswell (IA-03) seems more committed to sticking with Clinton unless she gives her superdelegate supporters the green light to switch to Obama. Speaking to the Register, Boswell

said the superdelegate system was not intended to reflect voter sentiment.

“It’s always important to respond to the voters, but I don’t think it was designed that way,” Boswell said.

He said he planned to support Clinton at the national convention, and would only consider a change after consulting her.

Expect Boswell to take a lot of heat for this position if Obama racks up a big lead in the pledged delegates later this spring. The Des Moines Register published this letter to the editor on Wednesday, written by a constituent in Des Moines:

Leonard Boswell’s pledge to cast his superdelegate vote for Sen. Hillary Clinton at the National Democratic Convention troubles me. Barack Obama won Boswell’s 3rd District by a large enough margin to win one more delegate than Clinton, who came in third in that district.

Yet Boswell’s vote, which he has only because he is our representative, will negate that margin of victory, rendering the votes of tens of thousands of us meaningless. That’s just not right. Maybe all of us whose votes Boswell will negate should return the favor by supporting his opponent, Ed Fallon, in the upcoming Democratic primary.

For the record, I agree with Bowers. Superdelegates should not be willing to hand the nomination to one candidate if the other candidate leads both the pledged delegate count and the overall popular vote. That would be disastrous for our party.

As you may recall, Iowa Senator Matt McCoy of Des Moines was acquitted in December on federal charges of attempted extortion. The case against McCoy was weak and raised questions about whether partisan politics influenced his indictment.

One detail that emerged from the trial was that in December 2005, Des Moines businessman John Ruan III (a Republican) wrote a $2,500 check to McCoy with the words “Mike Blouen” in the memo line. A few days later, McCoy contributed $2,500 to the gubernatorial campaign of fellow Democrat Mike Blouin.

That disclosure led to an ethics investigation, which has now been settled, according to the Des Moines Register:

A prominent Des Moines businessman and an Iowa state senator have each agreed to pay $1,250 to settle allegations that one used the other to pass an illegal campaign contribution to a former candidate for governor.

John Ruan III and state Sen. Matt McCoy will pay the fines as part of a deal to end a state ethics investigation into a series of checks between the men and the failed candidate, Democrat Mike Blouin.

The settlement, approved by the Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board late Monday, includes assertions that neither Ruan nor McCoy “intended to violate or willfully violated” campaign law with a December 2005 check from McCoy to Blouin.

Charles Smithson of the ethics board called the settlement “a fair resolution of the matter for all involved” and said Blouin would not have to return the disputed $2,500 contribution because “there was no evidence that he knew anything about the underlying situation.”

Paging Ed Fallon: Leonard Boswell may be making a big mistake, according to mcjoan’s diary on the fight over the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. She says that “House Republicans will try to derail the effort to pass a 21 day extension of the existing surveillance law and force a vote on the Senate bill.”

She cites this piece in CQpolitics:

As the House turned to a 21-day extension of a temporary law governing electronic surveillance, Republicans prepared a motion to force a vote on the long-term version passed Tuesday by the Senate.

House Republicans engineered a series of procedural votes Wednesday in a bid to derail the Democrats’ proposed extension, which President Bush said he would veto. They argued that the House should simply take up and send to the White House a surveillance overhaul bill that the Senate passed by 68-29.

Because 21 conservative Blue Dog Democrats have endorsed the Senate-passed bill, Republicans might be able to win approval of the Senate bill through a motion to recommit the extension with instructions to amend it with the text of the Senate bill.

Yes, Boswell is in that group of 21 House Democrats. Not only that, the same 21 Democrats wrote a letter to Nancy Pelosi on January 28, supporting retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies and other measures in the FISA bill that cleared the Senate.

mcjoan asked Daily Kos readers to contact the 21 Democrats. Here is the information for Boswell:

Phone: (202) 225-3806, Fax: (202) 225-5608

If you contact Boswell’s office, tell him to vote with House Democrats in support of the House version of the FISA bill, which is called the RESTORE Act.

Normally, I am not overly optimistic about calls to members of Congress making a difference, but Boswell is heading into a tough primary.

He can do the right thing for our civil liberties, which is also the smart move politically, or he can go with his fellow Blue Dogs giving cover to the Republican Party.

UPDATE: Paul Kiel has more on what happened in the House today. Boswell and the others don’t look like profiles in courage:

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpoi…

I wasn’t a big fan of the Obama “Yes We Can” video, but then, I wasn’t exactly the target demographic. (I didn’t recognize anyone in it other than Kareem.)

This parody about the McCain campaign is priceless, though. You have to watch it.

Barack Obama was expected to win today’s primaries in Washington, DC, Maryland and Virginia, but he won them by even larger margins than expected. He now leads Clinton in the pledged delegate count, and may even be leading if you include Michigan and Florida.

I agree with DrinksGreenTea that it would be disastrous to have superdelegates decide our nominee at the convention. I also would hate to see our nominee determined by the decision over whether Michigan and Florida delegates are seated. I would like to see a clear winner emerge from the primaries.

That means either Hillary needs to win all of the March 4 primaries convincingly, and win Pennsylvania in April, or Obama needs to take at least one of the following: Texas, Ohio, or Pennsylvania.

If Obama wins a big state, there will be almost no way for Clinton to overtake him, and I don’t think superdelegates will go against the candidate who leads in pledged delegates.

Hillary is paying the price for having no plan for the contests after February 5. Clearly they were counting on putting Obama away on Super Tuesday.

The netroots got very involved in two primaries so far this year. Mark Pera was challenging “Bush dog” Dan Lipinski in Illinois’ 3rd Congressional district. He ran a spirited campaign but lost by double-digits in the February 5 primary.

Donna Edwards came within a few percentage points of beating Al Wynn, one of the worst corporate Democrats in Congress, in Maryland’s 4th district primary two years ago.

This year she was backed not just by bloggers, but also by the SEIU, EMILY’s list, and Democracy for America. She even got the Washington Post’s endorsement.

The final returns aren’t in yet, but the media have already called the MD-04 primary for Edwards. It just goes to show that sometimes, a challenger can beat an entrenched incumbent.

Will the netroots and Democracy for America get behind Ed Fallon now? I hope so, although I must add that Leonard Boswell (disappointing as he can be) is nowhere near as disloyal to progressive causes as Wynn.

John Edwards met with Hillary Clinton late last week, and he was scheduled to meet with Barack Obama today, but the meeting was postponed.

If I were advising Edwards, I honestly don't know what I would tell him. I see the logic of not endorsing, endorsing Obama, or endorsing Clinton.

If he's going to endorse, I would think it would have to come before the big primaries on March 4.

What do you think he will do? Take the poll and explain your choice in the comments, if you like.

One of the many reasons I supported John Edwards was that I thought he would expand the map for Democrats in the general election. I thought he would hold all of the Kerry states, adding Iowa and Ohio with ease, and would make things competitive in several other places too (like Missouri).

I think Clinton or Obama could beat McCain or lose to him. Clinton’s winning scenario is obvious: turn out record numbers of women and Latinos, rack up a big lead among seniors, thereby holding most if not all of the Kerry states and adding Florida and/or Ohio.

Plenty of things could go wrong with Clinton’s scenario, but it is hard to argue that she would not turn out record numbers of women and Latinos.

Obama’s winning electoral vote scenario is less certain for me. Although nationwide polls show him doing slightly better against McCain than Clinton, he runs behind Clinton against McCain in several key states:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008…

And that’s before the right-wing hate machine has even opened fire against Obama. With Clinton, we pretty much know where her floor is, but with Obama, who knows?

That’s why Charlie Cook recently argued that Clinton would probably win between 48 percent and 52 percent of the general election vote, whereas Obama could get 55 percent or more, but could also conceivably get below 45 percent in the general.

Yesterday I asked Obama supporters at MyDD to give me their scenarios for 270 electoral votes against McCain. MyDD user JDF came up with this:

http://www.mydd.com/comments/2…

Here is how I see Obama getting to 270. This is a broad strokes view and I put it together relatively quickly so I am sure it is not perfect, but at least shows (from my POV) that it is not a stretch for Obama to get well past 270.

States he WINS

Wash: 11

Oregon: 7

Cali: 55

New York: 31

DC: 3

Maryland: 10

New Jersey: 15

Mass: 12

RI: 4

CT: 7

NH: 4

VT: 3

ME: 3

Michigan: 17

Illinois: 21

Minnesota: 10

That would give him 213 Electoral Votes.

There are 20 in Ohio, 21 in Pennsylvania, 27 in Florida, 13 in Virginia, 11 in Missouri, 11 in Indiana,  5 in Nevada, 5 in New Mexico, 10 in Wisconsin,  7 in Iowa

Puts 130 other Electoral Votes in play that I think fall anywhere from a strong edge for Obama to a moderate edge to McCain at this point.

Also, and this is a stretch, but I would argue that he can compete in states like South Carolina, Georgia, and Louisiana. Which puts another 32 electoral votes within reach but highly unlikely.

All in all I would give the GE edge to Obama. Also, I don’t think you give people in the south enough credit to be able to look past Obama’s skin color or Obama’s ability to transcend it. The people who “would never vote for a black guy” would never vote for a democrat either.

I think this is plausible (except for the part about SC, GA and LA), and I would throw in Iowa’s 7 votes for Obama against McCain. Also, Maine would probably deliver all 4 of its electoral votes to Obama (they don’t have winner-take-all there). Still, that only brings Obama to 221 electoral votes.

Florida is a write-off, given McCain’s strength among military and Latinos, and Obama’s relative weakness among Latinos and seniors.

Pennsylvania and Ohio could be real problems for Obama against McCain, in my opinion, especially when the media start covering Obama’s voting record on gun control in the Illinois legislature.

What do you think?

UPDATE: This diary by Clinton supporter silver spring is quite interesting:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008…

The MSM is constantly feeding us the theme that Obama would somehow be more “electable” in the general election because he overwhelmingly attracts independent voters, and if Hillary is the nominee, then McCain will get the bulk of the independents.  

There are two things wrong with the above proposition – 1) Even though Obama is attracting more independents, Hillary is not doing bad either; for one thing,  she is attracting more independents than McCain ….  but more importantly – 2) Independents are only one subset of traditional swing voters, the other subsets being Hispanics, white Catholics, white women and suburban voters.  Among the last four subsets above, Hillary is comfortably beating Obama (as well as McCain).

The diary has a lot of good analysis, including this bit, which refers to November 2004 exit poll data:

From the above 2004 numbers it’s interesting to note that Kerry actually beat Bush among independents (as well as Hispanics).  However, Bush comfortably beat Kerry among Catholics, white women and suburban voters.  Thus, it can be logically argued that Catholics, white women, suburban voters and Hispanics are as important as independent voters (if not more so) in order to guarantee Democratic success in November.

Catholics, white women and suburban voters are going to be crucial in states like Ohio and Pennsylvania.

A week or so ago I got another fundraising e-mail from Senator Harkin’s campaign.

Don’t take this the wrong way, because I strongly support and admire Harkin, but the $35 I spent on my ticket to the steak fry in September was the last money he’ll see from me for a while.

When you start the election year with $3.4 million in the bank, and your only declared opponent has $58.07 in the bank, I think my political donations will be more helpful to other Democrats.

As I’ve written before, candidates I plan to support this year include Ed Fallon, Windsor Heights Mayor Jerry Sullivan, who’s running for Iowa House district 59, and Heather Ryan, who is trying to unseat the Republican in Kentucky’s first Congressional district.

[Betsy at BlueNC helms the update again this week…]

This week we bring you double the pleasure in our 50 State Blog Roundup. Real life threw me a curve ball last week and I wasn't able to follow through with the roundup. My apologies. You will find last week's roundup tagging along at the end. Without further delay, here's what's going on locally at our state community blogs:

Minnesota
   Tim Walz — first-term congressman and Democratic National Convention superdelegate — endorsed Barack Obama's presidential bid this week.

Iowa
   desmoinesdem discusses the dispute between Iowa's governor and secretary of state (both Democrats) over the best fix for paperless voting machines.

Louisiana
   The Primaries are coming to Louisiana… and Daily Kingfish is torn between the two candidates remaining. Although Daily Kingfish is undecided, Ryan is sick of the all spin being put on the Louisiana internets about how Hillary hasn't released a plan to deal with the Gulf Region. Locally, Governor PBJ's Ethics Plan has some serious holes, and is facing criticism from the Ethics Board themselves!

{much more under the fold!}

My name is Kurt Meyer and I am proudly seeking the Democratic nomination for the Iowan 4th Congressional District. My wife and I are fifth-generation Iowans. My roots are in Mitchell County in north Iowa, where members of my family have lived for 154 years. 

I grew up on a family farm in a union household. My siblings and I graduated from St. Ansgar High School, after which I attended Luther College in Decorah, where I met my wife, Paula.

My life has been dedicated to serving my community. Since 1981, I have worked with and for hospitals and nursing homes, schools and colleges, congregations and human service providers…helping them plan, helping them tell their stories effectively, helping them secure the resources they need to better serve their communities. For 16 of those years, I owned and operated my own company, the Meyer Heykes Nonprofit Partnership, serving nonprofit clients throughout the Upper Midwest.

I have never shied from hard work. A strong work ethic is part of our district's bedrock values and we deserve a congressman who reflects the values and character of our district. Citizens with drive, skill and talent are obligated to roll up their sleeves and pitch in…something encouraged by my family and reinforced by the rural community where I grew up and now reside.

A positive, results-oriented, forward-thinking approach to public service can make a difference. It is not too late to make essential course corrections. Despite our current national trajectory, future generations will not inherit a world with less promise and fewer opportunities than the one inherited by current generations, if I have anything to say about it.

Many issues we face as a country converge as we stop to think about the kind of legacy we want to leave our children. The common goal shared by those in community service and those in public office is to create a better world for future generations. That is why I am running for Congress.  I am committed to changing our current course and improving the lives of people in the 4th Congressional District.

Clearly, there is a great deal at stake. To learn more about how you can be involved in my campaign, visit my website at kurtmeyerforcongress.com. I look forward to earning your support.  

Big wins for Obama today in the Nebraska and Washington caucuses. Early returns in Louisiana also show him winning, not surprisingly.

I will be interested to see if there was more than a negligible vote for Edwards in Louisiana, since he began and ended his campaign there and has done a lot to bring the Katrina aftermath to the media’s attention.

On the Republican side, Huckabee embarrassed McCain (and Senator Sam Brownback, who backed McCain) in Kansas today. Huck seems to have a shot at winning in Washington and Louisiana too. That would be just fine by me. Anything that keeps the “Republicans divided, base can’t stand McCain” as the journalistic narrative has to be good for Democrats.

Governor Chet Culver has agreed to back Secretary of State Mike Mauro’s plan “to use state money to help counties switch to one uniform system with paper ballots,” the Des Moines Register reported on Saturday:

Culver said he has put together a “working group” that includes Mauro, lawmakers and Culver’s staff. They will try to figure out how to get counties equipped with optical scan machines that count paper ballots – as he has long advocated for, he said.

Good for him. As I’ve written before, spending money on equipment that would print receipts for touchscreen voting machines would just throw good money after bad. Better to ensure that every Iowan votes with a paper ballot, which can be recounted if necessary.

Also on Friday, Culver endorsed incumbent Leonard Boswell in the Democratic primary for Iowa’s third Congressional district:

He called Boswell a “dear friend” whose military background is valuable on national security issues, although he said he respects Fallon and supports the idea of competitive political races.

Meanwhile, the Register tries to make news by noting that Culver has refused to rule out running for president someday.

Come on, reporters. He’s barely a year into his first term, and with any luck we’re about to elect a Democrat who will serve as president until 2012 or 2016. Let Culver get a term or two under his belt before you start asking him whether he’ll run for president.

Iowa Environmental Council Executive Director Marian Riggs Gelb: Iowa has a responsibility to help fix the Gulf of Mexico’s “dead zone.”

I encourage you to click the link and read the whole op-ed in Saturday’s Des Moines Register.

Voters will make their choice this weekend in Maine, Louisiana, Washington state, Nebraska and the Virgin Islands.

Jerome Armstrong put up the predictions from an Obama campaign memo at MyDD. I’m sure those are lowball predictions, though.

I don’t have a clue about the percentages, but I think Obama will win all these contests handily. Clinton’s best hope is probably Maine, where the demographics are more favorable to her and her base is less likely to be stuck at work (and unable to caucus) on a weekend.

What do you think?

Bleeding Heartland user Jim Clausen brought this article to my attention: Karl Rove will speak at the U of I’s Memorial Union Main Lounge at 7:30 pm on February 17.

Frank Durham, professor of journalism in the U of I School of Journalism and Mass Communication, will interview Rove. A question-and-answer session will follow the on-stage interview.

[…]

The U of I will pay Rove $40,000, which includes his speaking fee and some expenses, such as air fare, from the F. Wendell Miller Fund, the U of I reported. The University Lecture Committee will pay Rove’s on-the-ground expenses.

Media are allowed to get video, audio and photographs during the first five minutes of Rove’s talk. After that, no recording devices are allowed. Similar restrictions were requested by Bill Clinton and Janet Reno when they spoke at the U of I, officials said.

If you attend, please take good notes and put up a diary afterwards to “document the atrocities,” as Atrios would say.

Didn’t see this one coming. IowaCubs has the story on MyDD:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008…

Some people who are very close to the Culver family were involved with the Clinton campaign in Iowa, and of course Mari Culver endorsed Edwards in December.

Apparently Governor Culver will appear with Obama at a rally in Nebraska tonight.  

Barack Obama’s presidential campaign has raised more than $7.6 million since the Super Tuesday primaries, and Hillary Clinton’s campaign claims to have raised more than $4 million in the past two days.

It’s incredible to see these candidates’ supporters coming out in droves to contribute, and it should bode well for our nominee going into the general election.

At the same time, I urge anyone who has donated to a presidential campaign to set some money aside for worthy candidates seeking other offices.

As I’ve mentioned before, I am supporting Ed Fallon in the Democratic primary for Iowa’s third Congressional district. The incumbent, Leonard Boswell, has a huge money advantage, but as noneed4thneed recently pointed out in this thread, Fallon raised more money from individuals in January than Boswell raised from individuals in the whole fourth quarter of 2007.

If you are so inclined, you can donate to Fallon’s campaign through ActBlue.

Or, if you prefer not to get involved in this primary, I encourage you to seek out and support one of the many fine Democrats challenging incumbent Republicans this year.

For instance, in this diary RDemocrat makes the case for Heather Ryan, a candidate for Congress in KY-01 facing “one of the worst Congressmen in the land, Exxon Ed Whitfield.”

There are many state and local races worth donating to this year as well. In fact, a donation of a few hundred dollars to a statehouse candidate is more likely to make a difference than a donation to a presidential campaign that’s already raised more than $100 million.

I will be writing a check this week to the campaign of Jerry Sullivan, who is running in Iowa House district 59. It’s an open seat that leans slightly Republican, but Sullivan is a great guy with outstanding qualifications and experience in public service as well as the business community. I think he’s got an excellent shot to win my district for the Democrats.

Consider this an open thread to tell us which campaigns you plan to support this year.

cross-posted at MyDD and Daily Kos

I don’t have a dog in this primary anymore. My candidate, John Edwards, is out of the race. I would vote for and do GOTV for either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama in the general. I see major drawbacks to both of them as candidates and potential presidents, but I also think either of them have a realistic chance to beat John McCain and run a good administration.

This diary contains some friendly advice for supporters of both candidates going forward.

Join me after the jump for more.