As you recall, a federal jury recently acquitted Matt McCoy after deliberating for less than two hours–an embarrassing outcome for the prosecution.

Marc Hansen, who for my money is the best columnist at the Des Moines Register, wrote a good column about speculation that politics influenced McCoy’s prosecution. Key passage:

Most Democrats you talk to around here say politics was behind the prosecution of state Sen. Matt McCoy.

They have their reasons. Some even sound legitimate, especially in light of a recent University of Minnesota study that brings hard numbers to the discussion.

For every elected Republican the Justice Department has investigated during the George W. Bush years, seven elected Democrats have been investigated, the research says.

Can that be right? Are there really that many more bad-apple Democrats?

The jury took about an hour and a half last week to decide that McCoy wasn’t guilty of attempted extortion. And that includes lunch.

Rekha Basu wrote a good column last week: Question lingers: Why was McCoy prosecuted? Click the link–it’s worth your time to read the whole thing. This passage toward the end was news to me:

McCoy’s defense tried to get access to memos between the FBI, Justice Department and local U.S. attorney’s office, but was turned down in U.S. District Court. His lawyers wanted to see whether anything indicated a political motivation. There’s nothing else they can do, says attorney F. Montgomery Brown. “Prosecutors have near absolute immunity. There’s just no remedy there.”

There is one, but it would have to come from a member of Congress. Sens. Tom Harkin or Chuck Grassley can and should request access to the correspondence. Voters and taxpayers deserve to know whether this was just a poorly conceived and badly bungled effort by the government – or whether something else was going on.

Grassley would never help on this matter, but I wonder if Harkin would consider it.

Also, I wonder if anyone on the Talking Points Memo muckraking staff has looked into this prosecution.

I’ve always been skeptical that the deal between Dennis Kucinich and John Edwards was a big factor in 2004. A lot of Kucinich supporters did go to Edwards where Dennis was not viable, but a lot went to Howard Dean despite the deal.

The Dick Gephardt supporters who flowed to Edwards as a second choice were much more numerous, and they overwhelmingly chose Edwards in the absence of any formal deal between the candidates.

I see a lot of speculation on the blogs about Bill Richardson instructing his supporters to choose Hillary Clinton if he is not viable. I don’t expect him to make that kind of announcement, and even if he did, I don’t expect that most of his supporters would move that way.

The little deals that precinct captains all over the state will make could be important, especially if Clinton’s captains try to deprive Barack Obama of delegates and vice versa.

But I don’t expect any kind of public instruction from the Democratic candidates about whom their supporters should back as a second choice.

What do you think?

CBS reporter Chip Reid is “embedded” with John Edwards’ campaign and posted this on the CBS blog:

I’m a bit unhappy with John Edwards. I’ve been covering his campaign for 10 days and he hasn’t made a lot of news. Let’s face it – a lot of what political reporters report on is mistakes. The campaign trail is one long minefield, covered with Iowa cow pies, and when they step in one – we leap.

I’ve done very little leaping – and I blame Edwards. While other candidates misspeak, over-speak, and double-speak, Edwards (at least in these 10 days) has made so few mistakes that I end up being transported — newsless — from town to town like a sack of Iowa corn .

He has a remarkable ability to stay on message. Not just in “the speech,” but even in Q and A. Nothing throws him off. He turns nearly every question into another opportunity to repeat his central theme. Global warming? We need to fight big oil. Health care? Fight the big drug and insurance companies. Iowa farmers’ problems? Blame those monster farm conglomerates. And the Iowa populists eat it up. We’ll see how well it works in other states.

He’s even disciplined in his daily routine. While most reporters use the campaign trail as an excuse to over-eat and abandon their exercise routines, Edwards squeezes in a run EVERY DAY, rain, sleet, or shine.

Come on John – relax. Step in an Iowa cow pie and let me do my job.

Like my grandmother used to say, many a truth is told in a joke. Reid is half-joking, but the truth is that journalists would much prefer to cover a gaffe than report on a non-eventful day on the stump.

Here’s an idea: how about coming up with story ideas on your own, rather than waiting for the candidates to slip up?

Reid could tell us what the crowds are like at the Edwards events he covers. How many people are showing up? What’s the average age? More women or men? Are the people at these rallies mostly committed Edwards supporters, or are there significant numbers of undecided voters?

Alternatively, he could spend some time analyzing an issue Edwards brings up in his stump speech. How does that issue relate to the lives of Iowans in town X where Edwards is speaking? How does Edwards’ approach to that issue compare to what other candidates propose?

On any given day, Daily Kos users post numerous substantive diaries about the various presidential candidates. Some are about candidates’ stand on important issues, and some are about campaign strategy.

While Reid complains that Edwards isn’t giving him anything to write about, the Edwards Evening News Roundups are packed with information every day.

If these citizen journalists can come up with something interesting to write about, why is a CBS reporter sitting around waiting for a candidate to make a mistake?

“Gotcha” journalism does not serve voters well. Reporters following the campaigns need to figure out a better way to do their jobs.

I don’t read the Washington Times, but MyDD user Piuma noticed a piece there about El Latino, Iowa’s largest Spanish-language newspaper, endorsing Barack Obama. Here is a link to Piuma’s diary.

The El Latino editorial includes this line, which appears to be aimed at Hillary Clinton:

No other presidential candidate, particularly divisive candidates, can unite Congress and secure the votes to finally pass comprehensive immigration reform.

(I would add that it’s a fantasy to think that any presidential candidate will be able to unite Congress on any controversial issue, but that’s a matter for another post.)

In the comments below the diary, Piuma notes:

The Obama campaign has made an outreach to the Latino community and he is endorsed by Perla A., the Vice-President of Siouxland Unidad Latina, the area’s oldest and largest Latino organization, as well as City Councilmember Sara Monroy Huddleston, one of four Latino elected officials in Iowa.  This may be one of the many surprise groups Obama will turn out who have been ignored by polling.

Obama has several field offices in Iowa towns with significant Latino populations.

I have felt all year that Obama is the candidate who would benefit most from a primary rather than a caucus, because his support appears to be more concentrated in some parts of the state. However if his campaign can turn out large numbers of Latino supporters, then he could get a significant number of delegates in towns and neighborhoods where there are a lot of Latino residents.

This newspaper endorsement is a good get for Obama and has to be disappointing for Bill Richardson.

I have seen national polling suggesting that Hillary Clinton has much more support among Latinos than Obama does. Jerome Armstrong recently argued that Obama would fare poorly against John McCain among Latino voters. It will be interesting to see if Obama can win strong support among Latinos in Iowa. If so, that could help him in several of the states that will hold primaries on February 5.

Potential sleeper candidate Joe Biden picked up two more state legislator endorsements this morning.  From a Biden for President campaign release:

“Today, Sen. Joe Biden received endorsements from two key Iowa elected officials.  State Representatives Dennis Cohoon of Burlington and Eric Palmer of Oskaloosa become the 15th and 16th Iowa State legislators to endorse Sen. Biden.  

“I am supporting Sen. Biden because he’s the most prepared to be president from Day One,” said Rep. Cohoon.  “And as a high school special education teacher for thirty years, I know Sen. Biden can accomplish the education reforms we need to get kids in preschool earlier and give them the opportunity to go to college.”

Rep. Palmer stressed Sen. Biden’s experience in world affairs and his commitment to civil rights: “The Des Moines Register talked about knowledge and experience in their endorsement. To me Joe Biden exhibits real knowledge and experience in foreign affairs and his understanding of the constitution, both qualities not exhibited by this White House.  As Vice-Chair of the House Judiciary Committee, I am particularly impressed with Sen. Biden’s expertise in constitutional law, which will be critical to getting America back on track.””

Like the release says, that brings his endorsement total to 16.  And trust me, that’s a lot in the state legislator race and puts him just behind Clinton and Obama.  That bodes well for Biden in terms of organization and contacts.  State legislators have strong local connections that help them get elected in the first place.  Their opinion matters if nothing more than to help Iowans pick a solid second choice.

Now, don’t get me wrong, these endorsements aren’t going to catapult Joe Biden into the top three.  But they could help him a lot.  If any of the three front-runners do poorly in terms of rural organizing or see troubles in viability, Joe Biden could see a boost.  And with his Iraq policy and seriousness he still captures Iowans’ attention to at least listen to him.  The question is what kind of crowd will show up to the caucuses on January 3rd.

It’s obvious from the recent polling in Iowa that the top three candidates are bunched closely together. The ground game will decide the outcome on January 3.

Jerome Armstrong, founder of MyDD and “blogfather” of Daily Kos, came up with this prediction about how turnout will influence the Democratic results:

Turnout numbers        Favors

<150,000               Edwards

150-170,000            Clinton

>170,000               Obama

Basically, if it’s all the tried and true 2004 caucus goers, plus another 25% or so, that Edwards has the advantage. If it winds up being a blown out caucus that has greater than 50,000 more attendees than 2004 (most of the polls are working off this assumption), then Obama wins. If it’s somewhere in the middle, bigger than what would be usual but less than what’s being projected in the polls, then it’s basically going to be something like this poll.

Although many speculate that a record turnout would favor Obama and Clinton, I am hoping for good weather and a strong turnout on January 3. I don’t want an Edwards victory to be spun away as the result of a snowstorm.

I highly doubt turnout will exceed 150,000, though. Many regular caucus-goers will miss the caucuses this year because they’d already made vacation plans and will be out of state on January 3.

What do you think about Jerome’s prediction? And how do you think an unusually high or low turnout would affect the Republican results? I have to believe that Huckabee’s ground troops will turn out for him no matter what the weather.

As Chris Woods predicted, Tom Tancredo dropped out of the presidential race at a Thursday press conference. The Des Moines Register reports that he endorsed Romney, saying the former Massachusetts governor “is the best hope for our cause.”

The cause that vaulted the Colorado congressman into the race illegal immigration also motivated him to abandon his pursuit of the nomination, Tancredo said.

His continued presence in an election he could not win, he said, may have helped the campaigns of Gov. Mike Huckabee and Sen. John McCain candidates Tancredo says are soft on immigration.

If you want to relive some highlights from Tancredo’s Iowa campaign, check out this post by Don at Cyclone Conservatives, which includes links to previous posts he wrote after seeing Tancredo in person.

Alternatively, check out noneed4thneed’s posts at Century of the Common Iowan about Tancredo’s tv ads:

http://commoniowan.blogspot.co…

http://commoniowan.blogspot.co…

Interesting how these social conservatives are desperate not to see Huckabee win. First Sam Brownback endorsed John McCain, then Steve King went with Fred Thompson (the two campaigned together on Thursday), and now Tancredo is going with Romney.

Earlier this month, Romney started running this ad in Iowa hitting Huckabee on the immigration issue:

Incidentally, FactCheck.org found some problems with that ad.

I found this short anti-Huckabee YouTube focusing on immigration:

Now Huckabee is touting his own immigration plan on the stump in Iowa. Will he be able to withstand attacks from so many rivals? I’m betting he will as long as the anti-Huckabee forces are divided among several candidates.

Incidentally, a college student I know who interned for Brownback’s campaign this summer and is now volunteering for McCain says the mood is VERY upbeat at McCain’s Iowa HQ.

We’re officially two weeks out from the Iowa Caucuses now and it is anyone’s guess as to what is going to happen.  We’ve got a variety of polls that say John Edwards might be leading, might not be if you look at the other numbers from the same poll, ABC News/Washington Post says Obama leads, and CNN/Opinion Research Corp. says that it is basically a three-way tie.

In the end it is important to remember, as Jerome says, polling in Iowa is bizarre.  Iowans are fickle, we stay undecided for a long time, and our second choices matter.  But keep in mind the Insider Advantage polling is worth concern simply because of some mathematical and statistical issues.

And finally, as we get closer to the Caucuses, you’re going to be seeing a bunch more ads.  Below the fold are the two new ads from Chris Dodd and Joe Biden.

I’m not sure why this story wasn’t reported more or that no one was really covering this event, but it looks like Iowa Secretary of State Mike Mauro has endorsed Hillary Clinton.

“Mauro made his announcement Wednesday at an event in Des Moines, according to a Clinton campaign statement. He says the New York senator stands out among the other candidates and doesn’t have a “learning curve.”

Mauro says no one is more qualified or ready to lead than Clinton.”

This isn’t that big of a deal for Clinton’s campaign, but it is worthwhile to note that Clinton now has an elected statewide Democrat supporting her candidacy.

That means that Gov. Culver and Lt. Gov. Patty Judge are the only statewide elected Democrats not endorsing someone.  Iowa State Treasurer Mike Fitzgerald and Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller have endorsed Barack Obama.

I’m not sure if there are any other major Iowa endorsements left, but things are really beginning to get locked up now.  Two weeks out and we’re down to the field game.  

I’m tired of reading comments like this piece by Des Moines Register columnist John Carlson. Look how he mocks staffers for presidential candidates, who are just doing their jobs:

Campaign staffers, invariably Democrats, call my house every night. I haven’t a clue why they’re calling me. I’m registered independent. I’ve never caucused for a candidate in either party.

Typical conversation:

Do you have any questions about the caucuses?

Not really.

Am I going to caucus?

I dunno, I doubt it.

Do I have any questions about their candidate?

No.

If I did attend a caucus, would I consider their candidate?

I give them an audible shrug. Maybe.

They want to make the sale, but not push too hard. I say nothing more and they take the hint, thank me and hang up.

The truth is, newspaper policy prohibits me from caucusing. I just want to hear what they have to say, and for a while I egged them on.

Look, why doesn’t he just tell them he can’t caucus because of his job at the Register? Why is he making fun of people for calling him, even though he’s a registered independent who hasn’t caucused? Aren’t we supposed to want more participation in the caucuses, so the results have more legitimacy?

I’m also tired of letters to the editor like these ones recently published in the Register.

One letter complains about the frequent phone calls asking their opinions about the race. What’s wrong with polling firms trying to assess the state of the race here? What’s wrong with campaigns trying to identify their supporters?

Two letters complain about political ads on tv. At our house we usually keep the tv turned off, so this isn’t a problem for us. But are the political ads really more offensive than the ads for all kinds of other products viewers are bombarded with every day of the year?

One letter complains about a robocall for Obama by the lady who scuplts the butter cows at the Iowa State Fair. If his campaign thinks people will be influenced by her opinion, what’s wrong with them putting it out there?

One letter complains about the 80-page policy book the Edwards campaign has mailed to some Iowans. Why criticize him for trying to inform potential caucus-goers about more details on policy matters than newspapers have provided? Why blame him for giving Iowans more substance than can fit into a 30-second tv ad? A lot of people I know were glad to get that book in the mail or from a canvasser.

I’m tired of comments like this one that user JSN recently posted at the political blog MyDD:

Evidently 40% of those polled hang up (I am one of them) and we are getting called frequently. Under those circumstances all you can do is average as many polls as possible and hope for the best.

Early on I was called four times in one day. I have friends who have been called twice in a day. In the past week my wife and I have been called five times. In addition we get a giant post card a day from Edwards (after the third card he moved from second choice to 13th).

A long time ago in a galaxy far away it used to be fun to caucus in Iowa. It has not been fun for quite  awhile. We are all looking foreword to Jan 4th when all of the candidates, campaign staff and reporters leave Iowa.

Well, speak for yourself, JSN. Would you rather live in a state that had no influence on the process? Millions of Americans would love to be able to participate in selecting our president. My husband grew up in New Jersey, where the late primary meant they never got any candidate visits until the whole thing was wrapped up.

I don’t mind answering a few pollsters’ questions, and I don’t mind getting some knocks at the door from people trying to engage me in the process.

I also find it fun to meet my Democratic neighbors at the caucuses, even though I have criticized the caucus system in some of my diaries about the process.

As a precinct captain, one question I struggle with is how many times can I contact an undecided caucus-goer without making them angry and therefore less likely to support my candidate. I was struck by this part of a recent article by Roger Simon:

John Norris, who was Kerry’s Iowa director in 2004 and is now an Obama volunteer, thinks any campaigning that matters will end about Dec. 20, which is why the ground game is reaching a fever pitch right now.

Norris talks about a woman who supported Edwards in 2004 but who is now supporting Obama. Why?

“Because an Edwards volunteer only knocked on her door once and we knocked on her door several times,” Norris says.

I have huge respect for John Norris. As a precinct captain for Kerry, I remember how he held that campaign together during the fall of 2003, in the face of so many bad opinion polls.

But I would be afraid to knock on any particular voter’s door too many times, even if I had unlimited time for voter contacts in my precinct. It seems more likely than not that people would start griping about the Edwards precinct captain who kept bothering them.

Upon hearing that the Obama campaign is calling known supporters every three weeks to check on them, Nate Willems, who was a regional director for Howard Dean in Iowa, had this to say:

A late 2003 Dean focus group produced the comment from a participant, “I’d give anything for those Dean people to just quit calling me.”

I find it sad that Iowans, who are privileged to lead the nation in selecting a president, can be so quick to criticize people who are just trying to drum up support for a candidate they believe in.

I appreciate the efforts of all the candidates’ volunteers and staffers. So what if I get a few extra phone calls? It will be over soon enough on January 4.

As I said back when it came out, if Edwards is really limited to the rules of the public finance system, he is finished.  Having only $50 million through mid-August to go up against a Republican candidate sure to have well over $200 million is a debilitating disadvantage for the Democrats, and one that can be entirely avoided by supporting one of the other candidates.

However, there have been a developments with the story – not all specifically linked to Edwards.

The first is that it turns out there won't be money to pay for the public financing in January.  Instead, candidates will begin to get payments as tax receipts come in, and will probably receive their first disbursements in March, when the nomination will almost certainly have been settled.  While this seems like bad news, it is actually good for Edwards.  If I understand it correctly, it means that he can take out loans in the amount that he would be eligible for, delay or withdraw any request for matching funds until after February 5th (something Howard Dean did, though before Jan. 1), and then only accept the matching funds if he was clearly out of contention and just in need of paying back his loan.  If necessary he can certainly afford to take out loans on his ample personal assets.  John McCain, another guy who is thinking twice about accepting public financing, just did basically all of this.

I don't think anyone was naive enough to actually believe Edwards when he said that this was all about public financing being the right thing to do.  If people were actually snookered by that line, the fact that Edwards is trying to skirt the nomination procedure to start raising money again shoulddisabuse them of that notion.  For me, the whole “public financing is the right thing to do” garbage made him seem like a huge phony.  It still bothers me that the campaign still sticks by that line, all the while acting contrary to it.

Dodd misses the ballot in Virginia.

I can’t say I’m going to miss his racist remarks about immigrants and his fear-mongering.  From the Des Moines Register:

“Republican presidential candidate Tom Tancredo has scheduled a 2 p.m. press conference on Thursday to make a “major announcement.”

Tancredo, a Colorado congressman, has no other campaign events scheduled in Iowa after tomorrow’s announcement, said Alan Moore, Tancredo’s press secretary.”

My bet is that he drops out.  Good riddance.

This morning, the Iowa City Press-Citizen endorsed Barack Obama for president.  They wrote:

“Obama has the right vision for a new national politics and a new global reputation. He now needs voters and supporters who will help him transform that vision into reality. It’s a transformation that should have started three years ago. Neither the nation nor the world can wait any longer.”

It is a pretty well-written endorsement which also highlights the positives of the other Democratic candidates and specifically looks at restoring America’s image abroad and here at home.

While I disagree with their analysis on Obama’s healthcare proposal, I think that discussion of the issue is an important step to truly making universal healthcare a priority point of discussion in American politics.

On the Republican side, with only two Republican candidate visits to Johnson County’s paper of record, the editorial staff went with Mike Huckabee over Ron Paul.

Cross-posted at Political Forecast.

I just wanted to let you all know that I’ve joined a program with the Media Bloggers Association and Newsweek Magazine to syndicate my writing from here at Bleeding Heartland on a new special page on Newsweek.com called “The Ruckus.”  That means that Iowa Caucus news will be reported nationally from a Democrat on the ground.

Here’s what The Ruckus is all about:

“The blog will feature posts from nine MBA-member bloggers about the presidential campaign on a single page, giving Newsweek.com readers a convenient sampling of some of the best political blogging from across the country and from key primary states.”

The other bloggers who will be participating in the program are:

• John Amato, crooksandliars.com
• Faye Anderson, andersonatlarge.typepad.com
• Dean Barker, bluehampshire.com
• Adam Fogle, palmettoscoop.com
• Joe Gandelman, themoderatevoice.com
• James Joyner, outsidethebeltway.com
• Ed Morrissey, captainsquartersblog.com
• Oliver Willis, oliverwillis.com

I hope you check out their writing as well, and wish me luck!

Judgment was the key word at the forum.  The three advisors that were there discussed Obama's judgment and his ability to unite the country on foreign policy (unity used to be the status quo in Congress and has lately been divided b/t red and blue).  They also talked about his ability to rebuild America's image so that other countries' leaders will not have to sacrifice political points at home when they choose to work with the United States.  Sarkozy was an example of this.  He came in to power in France wanting to work with the United States but because the United States had ruined its image (its soft power) in the world, it became a political risk for him to work with the US.

So, basically the talk was about emphasizing Obama's ability to unite the country and to bring America's and the world's interest closer together.  At home he does not want to pit Republican foreign policy against Democrat foreign policy, but rather find a middle ground that would allow us to pursue foreign policy consistently and effectively.  He thinks unity is essential to successful and consistent American foreign policy, and I would agree.

Most importantly, the forum demonstrated that Obama can handle his own on foreign policy with his future advisors, some of which, especially Tony Lake, have been around Washington for a while and are seasoned bureaucrats.  Tony Lake is a smart diplomat/bureaucrat and it is good to see Obama got him from the Clinton campaign.  He did some interesting things during the Clinton administration.

The forum also allowed Obama to use foreign policy jargon, such as sticks and carrots, and to elaborate on how he would use them when dealing with difficult countries.

Another key point was that he called attention to the fact that in a debate earlier in the summer or spring he was questioned and then attacked by the Clinton camp for his idea about engaging our enemies by talking to them.  He reiterated the point that talking to one's enemies is not a bad thing.  We have to engage our enemies in order to settle our differences.  Isolating them and not negotiating is a negative use of our power.  But, what was interesting in when he said this was that he pointed out that after he made this comment in the debate this summer that the Bush administration started engaging North Korea and Iran.  Bush wrote a letter to the Iranian leader and also sent high level diplomats to North Korea to negotiate a nuclear settlement.  Obama spoke and the Bush administration listened, so to speak.

Obama talked especially strongly about reinitiating citizen involvement in our foreign policy. He talked about doubling the size of the Peace Corps, giving more funding to Americans studying abroad, and making it easier for foreigners to come and study at our university. He pointed out that part of what is so great about having exchange programs is that it softens the image and the relationship of two countries. Each person brings back to his or her country a new respect and understanding for the other country. Obama articulated that this is essential to America's effort to rebuild its image in the coming decades. Again, I agree with this.

He is taking the same approach that Kennedy had: Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country. Citizen involvement in foreign policy has taken a huge hit with the Bush administration. Every time I have traveled abroad this decade (twice to Europe, once to Mexico) I have had to explain to at least one person why they should respect America even though they hate the Bush administration. That is the job of our citizens who go abroad, especially when our country is in such low standing in the world: to conduct foreign policy individually. Yet, it becomes harder and harder to convince people to go along with what you're saying when your country's government acts arrogantly and imperialistically at the expense of other countries well-being.

Essentially, Obama continues to show good judgment when it comes to foreign policy.  Political experience in WAshington is not everything.  Unique experiences prior to coming to Washington have made Obama a good judge on how to handle different foreign policy situations.  He showed it with his correct predictions about the Iraq war in 2002 and he has showed it throughout the campaign this year.   

If you visit Daily Kos, you know that it would practically be a full-time job to read all of the diaries and comments posted there.

As you can see from this post by “jotter,” who keeps track of the “high-impact” diaries at that community blog, there were 1,876 diaries posted on the site just during the week of December 8-14.

I can’t even keep up with all of the diaries about John Edwards at Daily Kos. Many days I rely on the “Edwards Evening News” crew, who summarize the stories of the day and link to many of the good diaries. (Here is a link to all the back issues of the Edwards Evening News Roundup.)

While it’s impossible for me to cite every diary worth reading, I want to call your attention to two from the past week that I found particularly moving. The year we stole a Christmas tree by “chuckles1” was the fourth most-recommended diary out of the 1,876 posted. It inspired “karateexplosions” to write The Timeline of My Decision, which became the highest-impact diary of the week, recommended by more than 750 Kossacks.

I encourage you to click the links and read those diaries. They are compelling first-person accounts of how quickly middle-class Americans can find themselves living in poverty.

Many of our presidential candidates talk about this fine line between a middle-class lifestyle and life below the poverty line. For instance, Hillary Clinton’s “trap door” ad deals with that kind of economic insecurity, and she used the trap door metaphor in the Des Moines Register-sponsored debate last week.

But ultimately, I feel John Edwards is the candidate best able to address the issues that contribute to this problem. Not only has he drafted a plan to end poverty within 30 years, a wide-ranging plan to address hunger and food insecurity and a Rural Recovery Act, his own parents occasionally had trouble making ends meet. Chuckles1 noted in a comment below his diary,

I’ve heard John Edwards talk about this before, that look on your fathers face when he realizes there isn’t enough money. The guilt, the pain.

AND, not having done anything wrong, having worked hard, tried to get ahead, just to be left behind.

I don’t mean to suggest that other candidates in our field feel less compassion for struggling families. But I think Edwards would invest more of the president’s political capital into dealing with poverty. Karateexplosions likes all of our candidates,

But my primary vote goes to Edwards and his message of hope.  I never wanted my children to have to see That Look.  But now that they have, I want to work for an American future that means my children’s children will never have to see That Look.

My spell-checker doesn’t recognize it yet, but I just read on the e-mail list of the Iowa Network for Community Agriculture that

Locavore is 2007 word of the year

The New Oxford American Dictionary chose locavore, a person who seeks out locally produced food, as its word of the year. The local foods movement is gaining momentum as people discover that the best-tasting and most sustainable choices are foods that are fresh, seasonal, and grown close to home. Some locavores draw inspiration from the 100-mile diet or from advocates of local eating like Barbara Kingsolver. Others just follow their taste buds to farmers’ markets, community supported agriculture programs, and community gardens. Check out Local Harvest to find sustainably grown food near you, and make a New Year’s Resolution to be a locavore in 2008!

Source:

Union of Concerned Scientists  FEED – Food & Environment Electronic Digest – December 2007

The ultimate “locavore” is No Impact Man, who recently completed an intense yearlong experiment in sustainable living in New York City.

Buying local food and eating food in season is one of most pleasurable ways to do your bit for the environment. Also, we need to do more to promote local foods in schools or large institutions such as hospitals and nursing homes. The Farm to School Program is a good start, but we need more action in this area.

If you’re interested in local foods and sustainable agriculture, check out the Golden Apple Press blog from time to time.

They say that a great political ad gets the message across even if you watch it with the sound turned down. Check out the bookshelf that looks like a white cross in the background behind Huckabee as he wishes us all a merry Christmas:

(hat tip to Don at Cyclone Conservatives)

Today is a big day in the Senate. Majority leader Harry Reid has decided not to honor Chris Dodd’s hold on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Dodd objects to a provision that would grant retroactive immunity to telecom companies that illegally helped the U.S. government spy on Americans.

For background on the issue and Dodd’s filibuster plans, see this diary by DavidNYC and this diary by drational. The Senate Judiciary Committee approved a version of this bill that would not give retroactive immunity to telecoms, but unfortunately, Reid is going to introduce the version that came out of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, which would grant immunity.

In light of some Senate Democrats’ inability to stand up to the Bush administration on a whole range of issues lately, I am not optimistic that we will find 41 votes to uphold Dodd’s filibuster. Or, to put it another way, I fear that the other side will easily get enough Democrats on board to reach the 60 votes needed to break Dodd’s filibuster.

But let’s all hope I am wrong.

Memo to Senators Clinton, Obama, and Biden, who often tout their leadership qualities on the stump: show us you’re a leader by standing with Dodd today.

UPDATE: Head over to Daily Kos (www.dailykos.com) and MyDD (www.mydd.com), where several posters and diarists are keeping us all up to date on what’s going on today in the Senate. Video clips of Dodd speaking on the Senate floor are at MyDD.

SECOND UPDATE: The maneuvering was a little confusing today, but Dodd was able to buy us some time as Harry Reid pulled consideration of this bill until next month. Watch Dodd explain who helped him accomplish this and what still needs to be done:

Thank you, Senator Dodd. He’s my second choice, and I will absolutely try to help him get a delegate in my precinct if I can do so without costing John Edwards a delegate.