As we’ve noted, Hillary Clinton received the endorsement of the Des Moines Register over the weekend, and Congressman Leonard Boswell backed her last week.

The Des Moines Register reported on Monday that Congressman Dave Loebsack will endorse Barack Obama:

http://www.desmoinesregister.c…

“We’re incredibly fortunate this year to have this field of candidates,” Loebsack said in a telephone interview. “There is one candidate who stands out and that’s why I’m backing Obama.

[…]

“I think we’ve got to have a leader who can bring all Americans together for a single purpose,” said Loebsack.

Congressman Bruce Braley recently endorsed John Edwards, and now he has been joined by Iowa’s first lady, Mari Culver:

http://www.desmoinesregister.c…

“I think John is a winner. He’s electable,” she said. “He’s been tested. He’s been on the national ticket before. The national polls show him beating all Republicans in the general elections. He inspires me. I think he inspires other Iowans, and I think he can really rally Americans in the fall.”

In that article, Mari Culver confirms that Governor Culver does not plan to endorse a candidate. Senator Tom Harkin has also said he doesn’t plan to endorse this time (his wife, Ruth Harkin, has campaigned for Hillary).

Anyone else know of any possible endorsements coming down the pike? How about the other major newspapers in Iowa?

Long story short:  Terrible editorial, would work great for an endorsement of Biden, Dodd, or Richardson, but doesn’t explain at all why to pick Clinton.  My guess is it was based on gender.

A deep, talented field in the Democratic caucus race offers both good and difficult choices.

No fewer than three candidates would, by their very identity, usher the nation to the doorstep of history. Should the party offer the nation the chance to choose its first woman president? Or its first black president? Or its first Latino president?

Or should the party place its trust in two senators, Joe Biden or Chris Dodd, who have served their nation with distinction for more than 30 years each? Or should it heed John Edwards’ clarion call to restore opportunity for all Americans?

Beyond their personal appeal, the candidates have outlined ambitious policy proposals on health care, education and rural policy. Yet these proposals do little to help separate the field. Their plans are similar, reflecting a growing consensus in the party about how to approach priority issues.

Their plans on Iraq are not at all similar, no matter how often Clinton claims she will “end” the Iraq war.  Did anyone at the Register even consider this issue?  I personally think it is kind of an important one.

The choice, then, comes down to preparedness: Who is best prepared to confront the enormous challenges the nation faces – from ending the Iraq war to shoring up America’s middle class to confronting global climate change?

The job requires a president who not only understands the changes needed to move the country forward but also possesses the discipline and skill to navigate the reality of the resistant Washington power structure to get things done.

That candidate is New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.

From working for children’s rights as a young lawyer, to meeting with leaders around the world as first lady, to emerging as an effective legislator in her service as a senator, every stage of her life has prepared her for the presidency.

That covers three years, eight years, and seven years of her life – a total of 18 years, or 30%.  For some reason the register doesn’t think childhood, early adulthood, and middle-age don’t count as stages of your life.  Clinton herself obviously does, since she has attacked Obama for both a kindergarten essay and his time in Indonesia as a 10-year-old.

That readiness to lead sets her apart from a constellation of possible stars in her party, particularly Barack Obama, who also demonstrates the potential to be a fine president. When Obama speaks before a crowd, he can be more inspirational than Clinton. Yet, with his relative inexperience, it’s hard to feel as confident he could accomplish the daunting agenda that lies ahead.

Hard for you, maybe.  He has had mostly success in his endeavors at bringing people together to pass legislation, whereas Clinton has one huge failure and then a bunch of throwaway bills.  I don’t think reaching across the aisle counts for much when she is reaching across the do things like ban flag-burning.

And that’s just the comparison for Obama.  Clinton unquestioningly loses when compared to Richardson, Dodd, and Biden, who all have real accomplishments to their name.

Edwards was our pick for the 2004 nomination. But this is a different race, with different candidates. We too seldom saw the “positive, optimistic” campaign we found appealing in 2004. His harsh anti-corporate rhetoric would make it difficult to work with the business community to forge change.

Earth to Register:  The business community isn’t going to work with anyone to enact policies that cut into profits.  Edwards deserves credit for recognizing this, not attacks for telling the truth.  Not taking the opposition of business groups seriously is something that leads to legislative defeats.  Like, say, health care.

Unfortunately, for many Americans, perceptions of Clinton, now 60, remain stuck in a 1990s time warp. She’s regarded as the one who fumbled health-care reform as a key policy adviser to her husband, President Bill Clinton, or as a driving force in the bitter standoff between the “Clinton machine” and the “vast right-wing conspiracy.”

Her record in the Senate belies those images. Today, she’s widely praised for working across the aisle with Sam Brownback, Lindsey Graham and other Republicans.

Widely praised for what?  As far as I can tell she wrote a letter with Brownback, and I can’t think of any major legislation she has even fought for as a Senator.  Is it too much to ask the register what makes her such a great Senator, other than making friends with members of the former majority?

Determination to succeed and learning from her mistakes have been hallmarks of Clinton’s life. She grew up in Park Ridge, Ill., graduated from Wellesley College and earned a law degree from Yale. As first lady in Arkansas, she was both strategist and idealist, borne out by her commitment to children and families. As the nation’s first lady, she in essence spent eight years as a diplomat, traveling to more than 80 countries and advocating for human rights.

Right, learning from her mistakes.  Iran, meet Iraq.  And Bill Richardson actually spent time as a diplomat, as well as a Governor, Congressman, and energy secretary.  And in terms of the advantages that diplomatic experience brings, does anyone really believe that electing Clinton would do more good to our world image than Obama?

In the Senate, she has earned a reputation as a workhorse who does not seek the limelight. She honed knowledge of defense on the Senate Armed Services Committee. She has proactively served rural and urban New York and worked in the national interest, strengthening the Children’s Health Insurance Program.

Clinton is tough. Tested by rough politics and personal trials, she’s demonstrated strength, resolve and resilience.

Translation:  She brings home the pork and votes like a hawk.  I don’t consider either of these admirable traits.  Apparently the Register does.

Can she inspire the nation? Clinton is still criticized in some quarters as being too guarded and calculating. (As president, when she makes a mistake, she should just say so.)

Of course she won’t, since she won’t admit to making a mistake on Iraq now.

Indeed, Obama, her chief rival, inspired our imaginations. But it was Clinton who inspired our confidence. Each time we met, she impressed us with her knowledge and her competence.

Once again, Dodd, Biden, Richardson?  Are they ignorant or incompetent in the Register’s eyes?

The times demand results. We believe as president she’ll do what she’s always done in her life: Throw herself into the job and work hard. We believe Hillary Rodham Clinton can do great things for our country.

So basically the entire endorsement is a paean to competence and experience, yet it is in support of the fourth (and arguably fifth) most experienced candidate.  It talks about her bipartisanship, but all of the three or four more experienced candidates also have worked in bipartisan ways during their careers.

In other words, the editorial just does not explain any actual reason they could have used to pick Clinton.  It comes down to the fact that Laura, Carolyn, Carol, Linda, Rox, and Andie liked Hillary better than all the other candidates.  How about that.

And yes, I do anticipate getting flamed for insinuating that the decision was based on gender.  Maybe next time the editorial board can try writing an endorsement that actually explains why they picked the candidate they did so we out here in the blogs won’t have to guess at it.  And it doesn’t help when they bring up the issue themselves and then don’t address it:

Some had already speculated that we would endorse Clinton because the editor, publisher and I are women. We didn’t begin with Clinton. Like many others, we were skeptical, and, even at the end, not all the women leaned toward Clinton. But she won us over, particularly in the editorial board meetings and debates. And we take our responsibility to Iowa and the nation too seriously to make a decision based on just gender or race or one issue.

So, basically, they can’t explain why they liked her, they just liked her.  I guess that’s not any different than how most Iowans pick their candidate, but one would expect better from Iowa’s paper of record.

They are revealing.

Looking at this piece by the editorial page editor, Carol Hunter, you can see that even they feel a little guilty that they didn’t endorse Biden:

http://www.desmoinesregister.c…

Also, this piece on “rating the other candidates” has some fascinating passages:

http://www.desmoinesregister.c…

It’s clear that they almost went with Biden:

Even in our last major round of deliberations, we kept coming back to the question, “Why not Joe Biden?”

Many of the arguments we have made on behalf of the tested leadership of Sens. Hillary Clinton and John McCain apply to Biden as well. He knows how to get legislation passed. He, too, has deep foreign-policy expertise. We’re inspired by his fierce defense of civil liberties. His work on legislation to combat domestic violence has no doubt prevented injuries and saved lives. He might, indeed, make a good president.

But spending virtually his entire adult life in the Senate also makes his experience somewhat narrower than that of some other candidates. And in making sometimes slim distinctions in this talented bunch, we see his well-known loquaciousness as a weakness. It reflects a certain lack of discipline, and it’s gotten him into trouble on occasion with ill-considered remarks related to race. (We do, however, wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment expressed uniformly by his campaign rivals that his heart is in the right place.)

It’s also clear that they don’t disagree with Edwards on anything of substance:

We still believe he’s right about two Americas, the one for people who have everything they need and the one for people who struggle to get by. He’s right about the stagnation of middle-class wages. He’s right that the tax system and overall economic policy have become too tilted toward the affluent, making it virtually impossible for poor and middle-class families to get ahead.

He’s right that the baby-boomer generation risks breaking the “one moral commandment” of Americans: “To give our children a better future than we received.”

Edwards is most persuasive when he appeals to America’s goodness to do better by the vulnerable among us, as he did in last week’s Register Democratic debate:

“…Somewhere in America tonight, a child will go to bed hungry. Somewhere in America tonight, a family will have to go to the emergency room and beg for health care for a sick child. …Somewhere in America today, a father who’s worked for 30 or 40 years to support his family will lose his job. That’s what’s at stake in this election. What’s not at stake are any of us. All of us are going to be just fine, no matter what happens in this election. What’s at stake is whether America is going to be fine.”

Edwards has set the ambitious goal of eliminating poverty in a generation. He’s developed creative proposals to help families save and make college more affordable. (Other Democrats have outlined similar plans.) Edwards or whoever is the party’s standard-bearer should work to take those plans to the White House.

The question on Edwards is whether a self-described fighter for change, who wants to “cast aside the bankrupt ways of Washington,” can get results in Washington. For someone trying to reunite the two Americas, would he be too divisive a figure?

This part of their analysis on Barack Obama also tells you a lot about the people on the Register editorial board:

One board member described the case for Obama in the Clinton vs. Obama discussion as a bank shot versus a straight shot in pool. Success is less certain with a bank shot, but the gamble (in this case for a more cohesive, hopeful country) might be worth it.

Another veteran editorial writer described the choice as similar to picking Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a calculating but masterful politician at maneuvering needed legislation through Congress, versus John F. Kennedy, whose youthful vigor inspired the nation to take on new challenges. That’s not a bad choice.

This endorsement shows how risk-averse the Register editors are. They were worried about a few gaffes Biden has made (as if Clinton doesn’t have 10 times as much baggage). They didn’t want someone who would antagonize corporate interests like Edwards, even though they can’t point to anything he’s wrong about. And they think Obama would be too big of a gamble.

They also fondly remember FDR for his “calculating” skills at maneuvering legislation through Congress.

Although I don’t doubt FDR’s talents in this area, I think of him first and foremost as someone who had tremendous vision. He didn’t shy away from proposing huge changes to deal with the crises of the day, even if they were a gamble, and even if they risked upsetting the powerful corporate interests of his day.

Also, FDR was a very combative and partisan president. He did his best to pin every economic failure onto the Republican Party, and his presidency succeeded in realigning American voters for a generation.

That’s very different from the Register’s praise of Hillary’s legislative skills in reaching across the aisle.

Just wanted to bring this piece to your attention.

UPDATE: As I predicted, they chose Clinton. I had a feeling they would go with the choice of most of the Des Moines business elite.-desmoinesdem

The speculation is swirling and the rumor mill is working at full force today as the Des Moines Register is set to endorse a candidate in their Sunday edition–which will likely be revealed later tonight.

As Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post notes here it is a pretty big deal.  Jeff Zeleny, Register alum and now New York Times reporter, describes the effort of some campaigns to win the endorsement here.

Here’s a sample of some of what’s being said right now.  Ben Smith at the Politico says:

“But I hesitate to predict: Newspaper endorsements are notoriously neurotic, and driven by internal dynamics and the writers’ image of themselves as much as by anything easily predictable.”

I’m not sure how true that is at the Register, but I’ve been trying to work sources in the newsroom and all I know is that the Democrats have been fighting hard for the endorsement.

Marc Ambinder says the endorsement will drop soon:

“….probably in the early evening… and no one knows who… although all the campaigns have guesses, and at least one of them has an office pool.”

I know most of the campaigns will have folks down at Register HQ trying to get the first early copy and report back as soon as they can.

And finally, the biggest gossip so far, comes from the Hotline:

“Buzz is that the odds are with Barack Obama…

The paper’s support for John Edwards in 2004 catapulted him to a second place caucus finish. This year, though, he competes for the nod with a ‘fresher’ face in Obama.

Obama’s anti-war position could be the deal sealer. Edwards supported the 2002 Iraq war resolution, but has since said the vote was a mistake.”

They’re the only ones predicting so far…at least that I can find.  So, consider that a bold prediction.

I won’t make any predictions or offer any odds.  But how about you guys?  Who do you think will get the endorsement?  All I’ll guess is that it will be one of the top tier candidates: Clinton, Edwards, or Obama.  Vote below the fold.

How concerned are Iowans about caucus voting?  Like we’ve been talking about over this past week, there has been stupid controversy about college students participating in the Iowa caucuses.  The answer is: YES, as a student in Iowa you can caucus.  Now, the other part of the controversy has been about out-of-state campaign volunteers and staffers who come into Iowa and whether or not they should participate.

Let’s get things clear first.  Iowa law says that if you’ve been a resident for at least 10 days, you can register to vote in Iowa.  That’s the law.  To me, the spirit of the law then, as it would impact the caucuses, is that those who are truly committed to this state and their livelihood here–not simply because of a campaign, but because of school, work, and family–should be one’s caucusing.

Yet somehow, among all of this, the campaigns and the media seem to think that there is going to be a massive influx of volunteers and staffers who are going to do irreparable harm to the caucuses and basically cheat so that one candidate can win.  That’s like thinking that Dennis Kucinich really did see a UFO, and is, in fact, an extraterrestrial himself.

And KCCI here in Des Moines isn’t helping the matter.  Their story, headlined “Iowans Concerned About Caucus Voting: Out-Of State Operatives Flooding Iowa,” is mind-boggling simply because they don’t note a single ordinary Iowan who is concerned about out-of-staters voting.  It is merely an argument between campaigns that has blown up into a political worthless and quite petty tiff that just makes the campaigns look downright juvenile.

There really isn’t any concern among Iowa voters, or the campaigns.  Some candidates just wanted to gain traction and media attention by having other candidates sign their pledge.

Memo to the campaigns: Skip the hysterics, focus on the mobilization of Iowa voters, and play it fair.  It is just that simple.

Cross-posted at Political Forecast.

Well, now that we’re less than three weeks out from the Iowa Precinct Caucuses, it is time for me to make a tough decision: Who am I going to caucus for?

After watching the debates, attending events, reading the profiles, and listening to my friends I decided that it was time to face the tough decision.  Our field of Democratic candidates is an amazing spectrum of leadership, experience, and real desire for change.  I would be proud to call any of these candidates our nominee.

Why did I hold off so long in making my decision?  There were numerous reasons, but the primary one was that I wanted to make sure I was going to remain unbiased for as long as possible in my coverage of the candidates and to maintain a level of openness on both Political Forecast and Bleeding Heartland.  But the time has truly come to pick a candidate.  And for me, the candidate of choice is John Edwards.

A new Research 2000 poll for the Quad-City Times shows Barack Obama with a 9-point lead over Hillary Clinton and John Edwards.  Here are the overall results (500 likely caucus-goers with a margin of error of +/- 4.5%):

Barack Obama 33%

Hillary Clinton 24%

John Edwards 24%

Bill Richardson 9%

Joe Biden 3%

Chris Dodd 1%

Dennis Kucinich 1%

It is still clearly a three-person race, with the slight advantage to Obama.  To me, this is the key result from the poll:

“The poll also indicated an unsettled electorate, with 23 percent of Democrats and 34 percent of Republicans saying they were likely or very likely to change their minds before the caucuses. Only a third of Democrats, 33 percent, and just more than a quarter of Republicans, 27 percent, said they were not at all likely to change their minds. The rest, 44 percent on the Democratic side and 39 percent on the Republican side, said they are not very likely to change.”

The race is still quite fluid and second choices are definitely going to matter come caucus night when some candidate preference groups won’t be able to get viability.

You can get the full PDF of the results from Research 2000 here.  They’re usually a pretty reliable polling firm when it comes to general election or primary polling, but I don’t know where they’re at in terms of accuracy for polling the caucuses.

Does this mean Edwards can still win the Iowa caucuses?  I think so.  And Mike Lux at Open Left says we should keep our eyes on him.

Just a quick-hit diary to note that a federal jury didn’t take long to acquit Senator Matt McCoy of Des Moines on charges of attempted extortion:

http://www.desmoinesregister.c…

I haven’t followed the case closely, but it always seemed fishy to me, given what we know about how Bush’s Department of Justice has encouraged U.S. attorneys to prosecute Democrats.

UPDATE (11 AM): I got the email to supporters announcing the endorsement about 45 minutes ago.  The full text is below the fold.

– – – – –

The word on the street is that Hillary Clinton is going to be receiving the endorsement of central Iowa Congressman Leonard Boswell.  He is supposed to be doing it sometime today after Clinton tapes an appearance on IPTV’s Iowa Press.

To me, the endorsement won’t matter much to many Democrats.  While Boswell has done a lot for Iowans in his years representing Iowa, he doesn’t have the kind of youth and leadership potential that folks like Bruce Braley have.  He’s an elderly man, and a very conservative Democrat.  And for those committed caucus-goers, I don’t think this endorsement will change anything or mean that much.

What have you heard?  And do you think the endorsement matters?

cross-posted at MyDD and Daily Kos

When I talk to friends or family from other parts of the country, they always want to know how I think the candidates are doing in Iowa.

This diary is about why that’s a tough question to answer.

First, I’ll discuss why opinion polls can’t necessarily tell us who would win the caucuses if they were held tonight.

Then I’ll explain why it can even be difficult for active volunteers to gauge who is ahead in their own neighborhoods.

Finally, I will go over the unscientific methods we foot-soldiers in Iowa use to figure out where our candidates stand.

Before you analyze another Iowa poll, read this post by Mark Blumenthal about his efforts to obtain more information from pollsters about their likely voter screens and the demographic makeup of their respondents in Iowa. (Hat tip to DemFromCT.) Blumenthal notes:

So why did we go to all this trouble? As should be obvious now, the differences in the way pollsters measure “likely caucus goers” in Iowa are huge, not just in how narrowly they define the electorate but in the kinds of voters pollsters select as “likely caucus goers.” But these issues are not unique to Iowa. In 2004, 21 states held Democratic primary elections with single digit turnouts (as a percentage of adults), and only New Hampshire had a turnout that topped 20%. Over the next year months, results from hundreds of polls will be released, polls that will set expectations and drive media coverage, and yet those of us that consume the data will know very little about how tightly the pollsters screen and the kinds of voters they select. If we want to be educated poll consumers, we are going to need to do something to change that. We need to push toward greater routine disclosure of methodological details.

Really, everyone, click the link and read the whole thing. Thanks to Blumenthal of pollster.com for embarking on his “Disclosure Project.”  

I’m sitting in front of my TV trying to examine what the cable networks are saying about the debate.  The first network showing coverage was Fox News and their pundits were generally annoying and conservative; essentially, they weren’t worth their time.  But when they got to their focus group/panel of undecided caucus-goers done by Frank Luntz, they said that John Edwards won the debate.

I’m going to argue that John Edwards did indeed win the debate.  He articulated a coherent message that blamed corruption, greed, and entrenched interests for the problems America faces.  He also clearly told viewers that the only way to enact the policies and proposals that the candidates have promised is to elect a president that will unite America to stand up and fight back against these people.  His criticisms were constant, his answers honest, and his leadership potential was clear.  He told us how he is fighting for the middle class, and how he’s the candidate to truly enact change.

I’m always impressed with Obama’s rhetoric on the stump and during rallies, but I can’t seem to be impressed with his debating skills.  Maybe I’m just missing something.  And Hillary Clinton seemed like she was just there to give canned responses.  But I do have to admit they were honest and presidential sounding.  Joe Biden came to the debate with heart and passion, and even managed to keep his answers succinct.  Chris Dodd was presidential and brought the experience necessary to lead.  I was surprised how the speaking time was pretty equally divided, but amazed that Bill Richardson got the most time.  His answers and policies were good, but he seemed like he just had a list of issues and was rattling them off.

All in all, however, I’d be proud to have any of these candidates to be my presidential nominee.

In my mind, the debate was timid enough to declare any candidate a winner for the right reasons.  We want you to tell us who your winner was and why.

In about 8 minutes, the Des Moines Register’s Democratic Debate will start.  I’ll be doing what I can to live blog it–after the debate is over, I’ll move most of it to below the feed.

And if you’re interested, the Dodd Campaign will again be doing their talk clock:

Let’s go below the fold to read the re-cap…

Today at 11 AM Central Time, any and all comments to the Federal Election Commission on their pending decision regarding presidential primary matching funds on contributions received through ActBlue are due.

Multiple organizations are vocally opposing this ban, as it effectively disregards ActBlue’s nature as a grassroots fundraising system and largely violates the meaning of matching funds through public funding.  As the netroots’ own Adam Bonin wrote in his letter to the FEC on behalf of DailyKos and BlogPAC:

Obviously, while ActBlue is a “political committee” in the strictest sense of the term, in reality it does not act as such.  ActBlue is a conduit for individual contributor preferences, to track and aggregate small-dollar contributors.  It asserts no control over the recipients of its funds; the site’s only criteria is that the recipient be a Democrat. It fulfills FECA’s anticorruption goals by reporting contributors’ names, addresses, employers, and occupations to campaign, which in turn provide that information to the Commission as is legally required.

This is a clear a case as any of reformers accomplishing via technology what law alone cannot do: leveling the playing field between moneyed interests and small-dollar contributors by allowing anyone to become a “bundler”, and to allow such contributors to have visual, real-time confirmation of their impact upon the process.  In the same way that the public financing system itself is designed to encourage and magnify the impact of small-dollar contributions, ActBlue facilitates those contributions occurring in the first place.

If you’re at all interested in supporting the Edwards campaign’s position–which isn’t a tacit endorsement, but an affirmation of your belief in grassroots fundraising–please make sure to submit your comments.  You can see more by reading desmoinesdem’s earlier post here.

You can do that in a variety of ways:

– Visit JohnEdwards.com and send a comment through our simple form.

– Write an E-mail to Mary Dove, the FEC Commission Secretary at mdove@fec.gov

– Fax your comments to the Secretary at (202) 208-3333 and to FEC’s Office of General Counsel at (202) 219-3923

– Sign the letter from Public Campaign

Sorry tonight’s post is late and the past couple of days have been missing.  Remember way back when, when you had to write research papers and prepare for finals?  Welcome to my life at this point.

Anyway, tomorrow is the final Democratic debate of the season as the Des Moines Register hosts the debate in IPTV studios in Johnston.  Today’s Republican debate was criticized as being pretty tame and uninteresting, so I’m wondering if the Democratic affair will be just the same?

And what will the Republicans think about the questions posed by Carolyn Washburn after it was revealed that she violated Register policies and participated in the 2006 Democratic gubernatorial primary here in Iowa?

The blogosphere has been ablaze this week after Register columnist David Yepsen’s piece about trying to preserve the sanctity of the Iowa Caucuses by essentially banning out-of-state students attending school in Iowa from coming back to Iowa to caucus.

First of all, I think desmoinesdem is right with her post here calling for Yepsen to apologize to Obama.  As Obama’s been the most vocal of the Democrats calling for students to come back and caucus, he’s been the brunt of Yepsen’s attacks.  Instead, the Obama campaign has been busy fighting with the good progressive ally Paul Krugman instead of David Yepsen who often will smack down truly progressive ideas without indulging them fully or honestly.  So, while the Obama campaign may desperately want the Register’s endorsement, challenging his assertions and his problematic claims against students may do even more to boost your campaign than the endorsement.  But that’s another story entirely.

But secondly, I felt it was my place to respond as a college student (admittedly from Iowa) with many, many friends from outside of Iowa who plan on staying in the state to caucus.  These students spend at least nine months of the year here in the state and have the choice to register to vote here as Iowans.  When you spend 3/4 of your year in a state where you pay income tax on any jobs you might have and pay the local sales tax it seems quite clear to me that you ought to have a say in the elections the state holds, no matter who the candidates are.  The Iowa Democratic Party agrees.  From a statement released this afternoon by IDP Chair Scott Brennan:

“In running the First in the Nation Caucuses, the Iowa Democratic Party follows the Iowa Code in determining the eligibility of potential caucus goers. According to the Iowa Code, all college students who are at least 18 years old are eligible to vote and, therefore, eligible to caucus.

Any student who attends an Iowa college or university may participate in the Iowa caucuses provided they are 18 by November 4, 2008, and are a registered Democrat in the precinct in which they wish to caucus.

The Iowa Democratic Party encourages all eligible caucus goers to attend their precinct caucuses on January 3rd to strengthen the Democratic Party and declare their presidential preference.”

It is really just that simple.  And like others before me have said, David Yepsen is just being elitist in this column and implying tactics that are shady when in fact they’re completely legitimate and legal.

What is even worse is that some presidential campaigns are still agreeing with the rhetoric calling for all out-of-staters to stay away from the caucuses.  While Clinton’s campaign has been back-tracking, they still can’t offer a full answer on whether students from outside Iowa should caucus.  Chris Dodd’s campaign is the one that started the pledge, and both Biden and Richardson have tacitly or overtly signed on and offered rhetoric in support of the policy.  This is absurd to me, and I hope that the campaigns are questioned about this in tomorrow’s Register Democratic debate.  But I doubt it will come up.

And, just to rub it in David Yepsen’s face, here is the Drake student newspaper’s article on how students can sign-up to stay overnight in the Olmsted Center–Drake’s student union–and caucus on January 3rd.

College students in Iowa, stand up and have your voices heard!

A draft opinion out of the Federal Election Commission suggests that money contributed to Democratic candidates through the ActBlue clearinghouse may not be eligible for public matching funds, because ActBlue is registered as a PAC.

However, ActBlue does not function like an ordinary PAC–it’s just a convenient way for individual donors to direct online contributions to different candidates.

This issue came up because John Edwards’ presidential campaign has opted into the public financing system for the primaries. He has raised more than $4 million on ActBlue. Some of that would not be matchable anyway (because only the first $250 from each donor can receive public matching funds), but a significant amount should be eligible for the matching funds.

For background on this issue, read this post by Kos.

Adam Bonin, an attorney who covers regulatory issues at Daily Kos, is sending this letter to the FEC on behalf of Kos and BlogPAC.

Neither Kos nor Adam B supports Edwards, but as Adam notes,

This isn’t about supporting the Edwards campaign — I’ve made my feelings clear on that subject.  It’s about protecting ActBlue and the public financing system, and pushing for a legal regime which respects technological innovation.  Please join us in this fight — you only have until noon on Thursday to submit comments.

I encourage you to read Adam’s whole post–it’s quite informative.

The Edwards campaign is making it easy for citizens to submit comments to the FEC on this issue. Check out this diary by Tracy Joan, who works for the campaign.

The non-profit group Public Campaign is urging people to contact the FEC as well. After the jump, I’ve posted the full text of an e-mail I received this morning from Public Campaign. Or, you can click here and go to the Public Campaign website, where you can add your name to the letter they are sending to the FEC.

Did anyone watch? Did anything interesting happen?

Let us know what you thought.

cross-posted at MyDD and Daily Kos

A while back I wrote a diary on how tax reforms proposed by John Edwards would help the middle class. I am returning to the topic of Edwards and the middle class because I still occasionally see bloggers claim that his campaign is mainly focused on issues affecting poor people.

As it happens, a direct-mail piece that arrived in Iowa Democrats’ mailboxes late last week focuses on “The Edwards Economic Plan to Strengthen the Middle-Class.” I’ve reproduced the text of this mailer after the jump and added some thoughts.

In his column for the Des Moines Register on Tuesday, David Yepsen repeated assertions he made on his blog not long ago, implying that the Obama campaign is somehow not playing fair because they are encouraging students at Iowa colleges to return to campus for the January 3 caucuses.

As I’ve written before, the right of students at Iowa colleges to caucus is well-established.

Mike Connery goes into more detail about why Yepsen is wrong here. He notes that several rival campaigns have jumped at the chance to imply Obama is cheating in Iowa. I am proud that the Edwards campaign is NOT among those.

The Iowa caucuses should never have been scheduled so early, while colleges are on winter break. I encourage all of the campaigns to identify their student supporters. Why shouldn’t students come back to their campuses for caucus night?

I’m disappointed that the Register would seem to endorse the idea that it is illegitimate for students enrolled at Iowa colleges to caucus.