cross-posted from MyDD and Daily Kos

I’ve noticed a meme developing in the blogosphere, that John Edwards supposedly is only attacking and not providing any positive message for his campaign. I encourage you not to confuse what you read on the blogs (reports by journalists obsessed with process stories or diaries based on a campaign press release) with what Iowans have been seeing and hearing from Edwards lately.

The weekend before Thanksgiving, volunteers hand-delivered the 80-page policy book containing details on Edwards’ proposals to thousands of Democratic households in Iowa.

Since late October, active Iowa Democrats have received direct-mail pieces from Edwards about once a week. I diaried the first two of these, about his biography and his most important policy proposals and about his plan for Iraq. Since then, he has sent out a mailer on health care, a Thanksgiving card, a piece on proposals to benefit American families and a piece on providing a better life for our children. At the bottom of this diary I will reproduce the text of one of these mailers, “Fighting for American Families.”

But before I do that, I want to talk about a theme underlying Edwards’ communications with Iowans, which I believe will resonate with caucus-goers.

More is after the jump.

Oprah will travel to Iowa to campaign for Barack Obama, and his campaign has come up with a counter-intuitive way of doling out tickets that is either brilliant or foolish:

In a news release announcing the events, Obama's campaign said tickets to the Iowa events will be given first to precinct captains, then campaign volunteers, then to supporters and undecided caucus-goers.

 

It said volunteers can be guaranteed a ticket by completing a four-hour volunteer shift or attending local caucus training before the event.

I would never have thought to do this. When a big event for John Edwards is planned, I try to get as many undecided voters from my precinct to attend as possible. I figure, it's more helpful to put undecided voters at an exciting event than it is to pack the room with supporters.

Obama's campaign seems to have calculated that if they can get hundreds of supporters to step up their involvement by becoming precinct captains or volunteering for at least four hours, that will eventually bring in more caucus-goers than they would win over by putting several hundred undecided voters in front of Oprah.

On the other hand, isn't the whole point of Oprah's visit to excite and win over women who may not ordinarily be engaged in politics? Maybe having her address a roomful of fired-up Obama volunteers is not the best use of her star power.

What do you think–brilliant or foolish? 

UDPATE: Tom in the comments says volunteers will get preferred seating, but that others will be able to attend Oprah's events in Iowa too. 

I think Barack Obama made a mistake earlier this year by proposing a health care plan that was less than universal. First Edwards and later Clinton outflanked him on that issue with proposals that would cover every American.

So speaking to voters in Council Bluffs, Obama made the case against mandatory health care insurance:

Health care insurance should not become a government mandate, Barack Obama said here today, referencing plans posed by John Edwards and Hillary Clinton.

Obama said such mandates for health care coverage is a wrong step. He told a crowd of about 350 people at Thomas Jefferson High School that his plan would lower costs on average by about $2,500 per family, making health care affordable for all without placing demands.

He compared Clinton and Edwards’ proposed mandates to car insurance, noting that some states with required auto insurance still have a pocket of 15 or more percent that still go without coverage even though it’s illegal.

“Their essential argument is the only way to get everybody covered is if the government forces you to buy health insurance. If you don’t buy it, then you’ll be penalized in some way,” Obama said. “What I have said repeatedly is that the reason people don’t have health insurance isn’t because they don’t want it, it’s because they can’t afford it.”

Of course many of the uninsured cannot afford coverage now, but many are currently uninsurable, which would change with better regulation of insurance companies and more options for the public (such as letting people buy into a public plan).

Also, the Edwards and Clinton plans include many things that would lower premium costs, making it easier for more people to afford coverage.

The experts on health care policy say you need mandates to get everyone covered. But even leaving that aside, Obama ignores the fact that the president has to set the bar very high in terms of what he asks Congress to pass.

Maybe a comprehensive universal health care plan would not pass during the first year of the next administration. But you don't take the compromise that you might need to settle for and make that your starting offer to Congress.

I have written about this before. My biggest concern about Obama as potential president is that in his desire to appear post-partisan and conciliatory, he would give half the game away before negotiations with the other side begin.

If Obama won't even submit a universal plan to Congress, then what he would get out of Congress would be even less than what he is advocating.

Now, the conservative New Hampshire Union Leader newspaper has praised Obama's health care plan as “a smaller pill to swallow” (hat tip to MyDD user “silver spring,” a Clinton supporter). Of course, conservatives would prefer not to do anything to expand health care coverage. If I'm running for president in the Democratic primary, I don't think I want Republicans praising my health care plan because it does less than other Democrats' plans.

UPDATE: Ezra Klein, one of the blogosphere's leading wonks on health care policy, weighs in on “Obama's excuse”.

Come on, no one wants to take a stab at answering my two trivia questions? Watch the Chris Dodd video a few posts below, then try to guess which Iowa county voted for both JFK in 1960 and Bonnie Campbell in 1994.

Also try to guess how many counties Bonnie carried in that 1994 election (out of 99 total). 

I have to hand it to Hillary Clinton's campaign. This is a good video:

Exercising is hard. Dancing is hard. Singing is hard. Caucusing is easy.

It's important to let people know that they can show up at the precinct caucus. Just last night I ran into two people I know who are fairly politically informed. I asked them if they caucused in 2004. They didn't because they are registered independents, and they never got around to changing their registration. I told them they could change their registration right there at the caucus–they had no idea. If they had known, they might have come out in January 2004.

With the caucus set for January 3, I am not expecting a big turnout, but I give all the campaigns credit for trying to get new caucus-goers involved. That will strengthen the Iowa Democratic Party.

UPDATE: At Iowa Independent, John Deeth noticed something I missed in the video:

http://www.iowaindependent.com…

1:23 in: “Bring a friend, a family member or a neighbor.”  Sure, the more the merrier — as long as they live in your precinct.  Your across-the-street neighbor might caucus somewhere else, and your friend who lives across town almost certainly will.

He is right–Clinton’s campaign should not be encouraging people to possibly bring friends and family to the wrong precinct location.

A few years back I sent a small donation to Bev Harris's group Black Box Voting, which was investigating alleged electoral fraud. Since then I've been on their mailing list. I haven't donated again because I have read about controversy surrounding the group and the alleged evidence they have produced.

The latest fundraising letter from Black Box Voting arrived in my mailbox today. The letter opens with this passage:

Dear Patriot, 

Black Box Voting has been examining checks and balances for the Iowa presidential caucuses.

What we have found is grim: The Iowa caucus system lacks critical checks and balances. In reality, political party machinery controls procedures, documents, voting machines (yes, the machines are used in the caucuses in many locations), and chain of custody. This means that political party machinery has ultimate control over results.

-Unlike publicly run elections, Iowa caucuses are not subject to Iowa public records laws.

-Results for the caucuses come in precinct by precinct, but Black Box Voting has learned that these results are not committed properly into permanent public records at the time they are announced and a complete set of the recinct results can be very difficult to obtain. Even when individual precincts are carefully monitored by attendees, tracking down discrepancies for the whole chases a moving target–that is, if you can get a detailed accounting at all. Not acceptable!

-Use of voting machines in caucus and upcoming primaries: Manipulation of voting machines can achieve wholesale alteration of election results. The mechanisms are easier to understand when you watch the detective story as it unfolds in the HBO documentary Hacking Democracy. (See below). Computerized voting is locked into 2008. Paper trail? Necessary, but doesn't guarantee honest elections. Manual spot checks? Nice, but don't guarantee honest elections. The biggest risk is insiders, who have access to voting machines and ballots.

The letter goes on to say that Black Box Voting has designed a “Caucus Watch Project” for Iowa citizens. They don't give details in this letter–it seems that you would have to fill out a slip promising to volunteer in order to find out what they have planned.

I am not going to send them money or volunteer for this “caucus watch.” First of all, I am not aware of voting machines being used in any precinct caucus. Someone correct me if I am wrong about that, but at the caucuses I've attended, individuals count people in each group and report the numbers to the precinct chair, who calculates the delegate equivalents using a pen and paper or a manual calculator.

No one fills out a ballot or feeds any paper into a voting machine that I have seen. 

Second, I think this fear-mongering about “insiders” tampering with the caucus results is unfounded. The caucus is public, and the results at each precinct are announced to all who are present. I will be “watching” my precinct in my role as precinct captain for the Edwards campaign.

Precinct captains will report the results of their caucuses to the various campaigns, which will keep track of how many county delegates their candidate has won from the precincts.

I think it would be hard for party insiders to alter the results at the county level without one or more campaigns becoming aware that they were being cheated.

That said, I do agree with Black Box Voting that the Iowa Democratic Party and the Iowa Republican Party should make precinct-level results publicly available to allay any suspicions about the process. 

Side note: has anyone out there seen this HBO documentary Hacking Democracy? I am interested, but I don't want to send Black Box Voting a contribution of $45 or more (they are giving away the DVD to all donors at that level). 

After shattering one-day fundraising records on Guy Fawkes Day (raising more than $4 million), Ron Paul supporters are planning a $10 million “tea party” on December 16, the anniversary of the famous anti-tax revolt in Boston. They are collecting pledges at the Tea Party '07 website.

I see Ron Paul yard signs and bumper stickers every so often in the Des Moines area, but I have no idea how active the campaign is here. He seems to be putting most of his effort into New Hampshire.

Anyone else seeing signs of a Ron Paul revolution in Iowa? The gang at Iowa Independent put Paul fourth in their Republican power rankings–ahead of Fred Thompson and John McCain.

Thanks again to Katerina for sending me the cached page with the 2004 Iowa caucus results by county. I contacted someone at the Des Moines Register, and they fixed the page so that those results can be seen again:

http://www.desmoines…

In case anyone wants to check how the candidates did in this or that county.

Keep in mind that in 2004 there were 3,000 state delegates up for grabs; this cycle there will only be 2,500. So the counties are assigning different numbers of state delegates than what appears on this page.

cross-posted at Daily Kos and MyDD

Field organizers for the presidential campaigns in Iowa have many jobs, and one of the most important is lining up precinct captains. Mike Lux laid out why Precinct Captains are the Key at Open Left this summer, emphasizing what these volunteers can do for their candidates on caucus night.

In this diary I will focus on how precinct captains can help their candidates during the weeks and months before the Iowa caucuses.

I covered some of this ground in a recent diary on my house party for John Edwards. I think it's worth going over a few points again for readers who don't click on diaries with “John Edwards” in the title.

Political junkies and hacks, join me after the jump.

Watch Chris Dodd display some impressive knowledge of Iowa electoral history:

I had no idea how many Iowa counties John F. Kennedy carried in the 1960 general election, and I was surprised by a couple of the ones he did carry.

Now, here are two trivia questions for you Bleeding Heartland readers.

1. How many counties did Bonnie Campbell carry during the 1994 gubernatorial election? (Sadly, I remember this all too well.) 

2. What was the only Iowa county that voted for both JFK and Bonnie Campbell? 

Extra credit if you can name all of the counties Bonnie carried in 1994 (without peeking).

I will post the answers in a couple of days. 

Richard Doak, a retired editor and columnist for the Des Moines Register, wrote an interesting piece on presidential endorsements in the Sunday paper. I encourage you to click the link and read it. He wrote the endorsement editorials for 20 years.

My only quibble is that I think Doak exaggerates the importance of the Register's endorsement of John Edwards four years ago. The Register published the endorsement eight days before the caucuses. I was working my precinct hard for John Kerry and started noticing a surge in support for Edwards more than a month before then. I distinctly remember calling my field organizer in mid-December to tell him that Edwards was gaining a lot of strength and would probably be viable. He said, “I know.” The field organizers were hearing the same thing from all of their captains.

The endorsement certainly gave Edwards good publicity, and probably convinced some leaners that he was a viable candidate, but it was by no means the spark that helped him finish a close second to Kerry. 

Doak describes the editorial board's endorsement process and notes that there are two endorsements he regrets: choosing Bill Bradley over Al Gore and George W. Bush over John McCain in 2000. I'm cutting the Register some slack on the first one, because I too made the mistake of supporting Bradley over Gore. I even sent him money.

But endorsing Bush over McCain? That was gutless. Doak admits that the editorial board almost endorsed McCain, but balked because they were charmed by Bush and anyway, McCain had written off Iowa.

The composition of the Register editorial board is different from four years ago. I wouldn't be too surprised to see them go with the establishment choice, Hillary Clinton, like they went for Bush as the establishment candidate in 2000.

Then again, maybe they will try to mix things up by picking a longshot, like they did in 2004. In that case my money would be on the Register backing Joe Biden, although Bill Richardson might also be a possibility.

What do you think? 

I've been saying for a long time that Rudy Giuliani will not be the GOP nominee. Others say he's got a plausible path: finish in the top three in Iowa, the top two in New Hampshire, then hang on until the big states vote on February 5. 

Now, this would be realistic if Rudy were actually going after Republican moderates in Iowa. Religious conservatives clearly call the shots in the party, but if the goal is just to finish in the top three, you could do that with a united front of moderates.

But read this article from the Sunday Des Moines Register on the lack of outreach from Giuliani's campaign to Republican moderates. It is beyond belief. Three former Republican members of the Iowa legislature (all women) are quoted about how Rudy is just pandering to the religious right. And read this part:

Diane Crookham Johnson's telephone has been quiet.

The moderate Republican from Oskaloosa led the Iowa Republican Party's 2004 fundraising effort and helped one-time presidential prospect George Pataki begin organizing in Iowa before the former New York governor decided last year not to run.

Johnson said she heard from Giuliani's staff once several months ago but not from the former mayor nor any other candidate, she said. In Iowa, it is common for party activists to hear directly from presidential candidates by telephone or in person.

“There are candidates who it's worth my time to caucus for. But I've not found a campaign worth giving up my time for,” she said. “Giuliani would have come the closest. But even that campaign is not fully committed in Iowa.”

Rudy hasn't even called the woman who led the Iowa GOP's fundraising in 2004. How connected do you think she is? I knew Rudy was lazy and not making much of an effort in Iowa, but come on–how could he not call this woman? It's insane.

If you are interested in sustainable agriculture, check out the new Golden Apple Press blog. Front-pagers include Natasha Chart, who occasionally posts at MyDD, and Orangeclouds115, whose “Vegetables of Mass Destruction” diaries have gained quite a following at Daily Kos.

The latest post at Golden Apple Press is on farm-to-school programs. You may recall that the Iowa legislature approved and funded a farm-to-school program on the last day of this year's session.

This article from the New York Times has made a splash in the liberal blogosphere:

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York has nearly doubled the size of her staff in Iowa and has substantially increased her advertising here as her campaign reinforces its effort to prevent Democrats from coalescing around a single alternative to her candidacy.

In the four weeks between Thanksgiving and Christmas, Mrs. Clinton, whose campaign has been on the defensive lately because of her own missteps and increasingly aggressive attacks from her rivals, is moving to double or triple the amount of time she has spent here in recent months. Seldom will a day go by, aides said, when either she or former President Bill Clinton will not be on some patch of Iowa soil trying to solidify her support and win over an unusually high number of uncommitted voters.

“We’re going to begin using all the assets we have,” said Tom Vilsack, a former governor of Iowa who serves as co-chairman of the Clinton campaign. “We haven’t been bashful about asking for the moon here.”

If I were running Hillary's campaign, I would also use Bill as much as possible. His favorables have been higher than Hillary's for the last 15 years, and he generates a lot of excitement and free media coverage everywhere he goes.

That said, to my mind this is the key passage in the article:

More than 60 percent of those who have identified themselves as Clinton supporters, senior strategists say, have never participated in the Iowa caucuses. It is a far higher share than the campaign had been anticipating, which suggests that many of the reliable rank-and-file Democrats have chosen another candidate. So the Clinton campaign is working to expand its universe of supporters to women who have never participated.

The New York Times article goes on to say that Hillary now has 34 field offices in Iowa,

arriving in many cities more than two months behind the local operatives for Mr. Obama or Mr. Edwards. Last week, the Clinton campaign’s national headquarters sent a top communications operative to Iowa and hired eight deputies charged solely with drumming up media coverage in smaller cities across the state.

The big question is, will Clinton's staff be able to get those first-time caucus-goers to show up on January 3?

I know Hillary has been doing lots of robocalls. I've received several myself. Presumably those are aimed at all Iowa Democrats, not just the universe of past caucus-goers. Hillary is talking about whatever issue, and then at the end she says, press 1 if you are ready to support me, press 2 if you want more information about my campaign.

It would take very little effort for a non-regular voter to listen to this call and press 1. I imagine that is how they are compiling a large list of supporters who have never caucused before.

If she can turn those people out, she deserves to win, and the Iowa Democratic Party will benefit from having more people engaged in the process.

A diary on the New York Times article generated a heated discussion last night on Daily Kos.

Jerome Armstrong posted an interesting commentary on the article at MyDD. He inferred that

The Clinton campaign must have polled and segmented and projected that, with the given caucus universe, they just can't win in Iowa– recall their internal memo earlier this spring that considered ditching the state. So instead, the focus moves to the technique of expanding the caucus universe.

This post by Nate Willems seems to support this analysis as well, especially his observation that

In making calls through a list of rural Democrats who are consistent primary voters, but who lack a history of attending a caucus, my anecdotal notes show that Clinton is significantly stronger than any other candidate.  Accordingly, it does seem that she would benefit from a larger turnout.  

Amongst rural Democrats with a record of attending their caucus, my notes show a very competitive race between Edwards and Clinton with Obama distinctly behind.

What do you think? Is the Clinton campaign truly concerned that recent Iowa polls showing her in the lead include too many people who are unlikely to caucus? Or are they mainly trying to lower expectations for their candidate in Iowa?

The Des Moines Register revamped their website recently, and now this page, which used to show the 2004 caucus results by county, no longer has any information:

http://desmoinesregi…

Does anybody else know an online reference for detailed county-level results? I am working on the next installment in my Iowa caucus diary series.

I am kicking myself for never printing out that chart. I figured, why waste the paper? I've got it bookmarked. 

Good for him. Got this today from the Iowa Environmental Council:

 

 

IOWA ENVIRONMENTAL LEADERS HAIL HISTORIC AGREEMENT ON GLOBAL WARMING REDUCTION
Iowa Gov. Chet Culver exercised bold leadership to reduce the critical threat of global warming and promote economic development when he signed a historic multi-state agreement Thursday to significantly reduce carbon emissions, Iowa environmental leaders said.

 

Culver joined leaders of five other Midwestern states and the Premier of Manitoba, Canada in a pact to cut carbon pollution 60 to 80 percent, as recommended by scientists.  The agreement, signed at a meeting of the Midwest Governors Association, will spur investment in clean, renewable energy and energy efficient technology – fueling the growth of local industries in Iowa.

 

“Our governors today will propel Iowa and the Midwest to a clean energy economy. Boosting our use of wind, solar, and biomass will create thousands of new jobs,” said Nathaniel Baer, energy director at the Iowa Environmental Council.

 

Already wind turbine manufacturers have brought nearly 1,000 new jobs and over $100 million in capital investments to Iowa. Studies by the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Environmental Law & Policy Center show that thousands of additional jobs and investments are in store from the kind of clean energy policies recommended in this platform.

 

The multi-state accord finalized Thursday should also yield major reductions in Iowa’s total energy-related carbon dioxide emissions, which rank in the top half of the nation, according figures obtained from the website of the Energy Information Administration in the U.S. Department of Energy.

“With the stroke of Governor Culver’s pen, Iowa has reversed its legacy as a major source of global warming pollution and emerged as part of the solution to the problem.   We thank him for his leadership in securing our energy future,” said Marian Riggs Gelb, executive director for the Iowa Environmental Council.

The Iowa chapter of the Sierra Club sent out an e-mail later in the day, hailing the accord while urging citizens to call Culver's office at 515-281-5211

to thank him for his support of this accord and ask him to prevent the construction of two new dirty coal burning power plants in Waterloo and Marshalltown. If built those two plants would eliminate all of the good work that Governor Culver is trying to accomplish by emitting as much carbon dioxide every year as the entire passenger vehicle fleet of the State of Iowa, more than 1.6 million cars.

I'll make that call today. 

UPDATE: The Union of Concerned Scientists has declared an “urgent action” to thank Culver for this while asking him to block the proposed coal-fired power plans. I've posted an e-mail from that group after the jump.

As usual, I'll be taping the Democratic debate and watching it later (with very low expectations for the level of discussion, given Wolf Blitzer's role as moderator).

If you saw it, what did you think?

UPDATE: Added the Dodd clock. Wolf Blitzer is truly a horrendous moderator. Judy Woodruff should do all these.

SECOND UPDATE: CNN's post-debate coverage is atrocious. They've got Carville, who has been close to the Clintons for 15 years, talking about how well Hillary did, with no one mentioning that he is involved with Hillary's campaign.

They've got Gergen, who also worked for Bill Clinton, plus a Republican, JC Watts, who probably wants his party to be able to run against Hillary.

The professional journalists' questions were poor, and the inequitable allocation of time given to the candidates was inexcusable. 

I got so busy this week that I forgot to cross-post my front-page piece from MyDD. This ran on Tuesday and was written primarily for non-Iowans who are less familiar with the caucus system.
In my diary series on how the Iowa caucuses work, I've written a little about how precinct captains can help their candidates on caucus night and about how precinct captains can (modestly) increase turnout in their neighborhoods. But I haven't written yet about one of the most enjoyable tasks of a precinct captain: hosting a house party.

Last Thursday I held my first house party for undecided voters who are considering John Edwards. (In late 2003 I hosted several of these for John Kerry.) The experience was well worth the time I spent on the event.

Much more after the jump. 

Over at Iowa Independent, Lynda Waddington has been keeping track of the presidential candidate endorsements by Democrats in the Iowa legislature.

So far Hillary Clinton has 16 endorsements from legislators, Barack Obama has 15, Joe Biden has 13, John Edwards has 10 (Lynda published his total as nine, but State Representative Bob Kressig of Cedar Falls endorsed Edwards today), and Chris Dodd has three.

More than two dozen Democrats in the legislature have yet to endorse, and it's unclear how many of them will publicly support a presidential candidate.

When you think about it, it's surprising that Hillary Clinton hasn't got a bigger lead in the endorsement race, with a former two-term president and a former two-term governor trying to win people over to her side. Her big lead in national polling would seem to make endorsing her the “safe” play as well. 

Why aren't more legislators supporting her presidential bid? 

I am also surprised that no one in the legislature has backed Bill Richardson. He's too conservative for me on economic issues, and I'm mad that he is going around telling people that Edwards would leave 100,000 troops in Iraq, which is demonstrably false.

But truly, he's a successful governor with legislative and diplomatic experience and good ideas in many areas (I am partial to his environmental and transportation policy plans). I am surprised that he's not getting more support from Democratic elected officials. Maybe most of the pro-gun Democrats lost their seats during the 1990s?

I got a fake “survey” phone call Tuesday morning testing various negative messages about Hillary Clinton and John Edwards. I diaried the call at MyDD:

http://www.mydd.com/…

Another Edwards supporter got the same call and put up a diary at the Edwards campaign blog blaming Barack Obama's campaign. I doubt Obama's campaign is behind the calls, though. My first thought was that an independent group supporting Obama might have ordered this survey, but the more I think about it, the more I think that it's a Republican hit job. 

For more info on the “Central Research” firm that placed the call, read the comments under my diary at MyDD or click on this story by Ben Smith at Politico:

http://www.politico….

One of the commenters at MyDD suggested that the survey may be targeting Hillary (the front-runner) and whomever the respondent names as a first choice. So perhaps if I had answered that I was planning to caucus for Obama, I would have then heard negative message-testing against Hillary and Obama, instead of against Hillary and Edwards.

Has anyone else gotten calls like these lately? Please share your experience in the comments. 

If you get one of these calls, try to make a note of the phone number where it originated. We don't have caller ID, so I was unable to do that. I did press the woman about who paid for the call, but she wouldn't say anything other than that Central Research is an independent firm.

UPDATE: Ben Smith has published follow-up posts at Politico:

http://www.politico….

http://www.politico….

Also, Mark Blumenthal of pollster.com says this is definitely push-polling, not message-testing. He finds it inconceivable that the Edwards campaign would be involved in this kind of poll:

http://www.pollster….

Chase Martyn was on the Taylor Marsh radio show today discussing the issue. I didn't hear the show, but from what I read at MyDD, Chase thinks that the Edwards campaign paid for these calls to test the loyalty of their supporters.

Sorry, Chase, that makes no sense. Campaigns may test negative messages about themselves (usually in a real poll that also tests positive messages about themselves and negative messages about opponents). But this was not a real poll. Furthermore, the Edwards campaign has spent very little on polling of any kind. Are you telling me that they would decide to spend money reminding supporters that Elizabeth Edwards has cancer?

Not likely. The purpose of a poll like this is to decrease support for the target candidate. And the only people who would pay for such a call are people who do not want John Edwards to win the Iowa caucuses.

Click the link above to read Mark Blumenthal's expert commentary on the issue.  

As I said above, I do not believe the Obama campaign is behind the call. The perpetrators may have deliberately left Obama out of the call to point the finger at him, however.