Iowa should not pick the next president. I don't think my opinion should matter more than those in other states. However, I do think Iowa and New Hampshire should go first because they are small states that are won on the ground with retail politics. If Iowa and New Hampshire weren't first, then Joe Biden and Chris Dodd would not be in the race and maybe even Bill Richardson and campaigns would be won with TV ads, large donor fundraisers, and even more mud throwing.

You don't need a ton of money to do well in Iowa, just look at Mike Huckabee's performace at the Ames Straw Poll. Huckabee had less than half a million dollars on hand at the end of the July. In some states, one TV ad costs more money than Huckabee has. Huckabee is still able to gain traction in the race because Iowa is first.

I see Iowa's job to narrow the field down. Let everyone and their brother/sister/mailman campaign in Iowa. We will attend the events at the coffee shops and in the city parks and ask the tough questions. Those that can't make it through this game of retail politics and meet the people face to face will drop out and those that can, will move on to the other states.

What needs to happen is to spread the nominating calendar out. Back in '68 things didn't get heated up until May and June. Now we will have this thing decided by early February. Whomever comes out on top will then get pummeled by the Republican Noise machine for 6 months before the convention. That is not good the democratic process or for the Democratic Party.

Just got this on the I-Renew e-mail list:

September 20, 2007       
Contacts:          

Carrie La Seur, Plains Justice (Cedar Rapids), 319-560-4729, claseur@plainsjusti ce.org

 

Nathaniel Baer, Iowa Environmental Council (Des Moines), 515-244-1194, Baer@iaenvironment. org

Maureen McCue, Physicians for Social Responsibility (Iowa City), 319-828-4789

 

Sally Wilson, Community Energy Solutions (Marshalltown) , 641-751-2852, saynotocoal@ yahoo.com 

Des Moines – Today a coalition of five public interest organizations filed a Petition to Intervene in the application by Interstate Power and Light Company (Alliant Energy) to the Iowa Utilities Board to construct a 660 megawatt pulverized coal plant in Marshalltown.  The coalition will present expert witness testimony on the public health and global warming impacts, the increase in electrical rates, and the displacement of renewable energy that will result from this old-fashioned coal plant. 

 

The public interest coalition that intervened today includes Community Energy Solutions, Iowa Environmental Council, Iowa Farmers Union, Iowa Renewable Energy Association and Iowa Chapter of Physicians for Social Responsibility.  Coalition members represent Marshalltown residents as well as tens of thousands of Iowans.  Coal-fired power plants contribute 40% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions caused by human activities.  Iowa gets up to 85% of its electricity from coal, while the national average is 50%.  

 

Coal combustion emissions contribute to respiratory and cardiac ailments because of increases in particulate matter, or soot, a pollutant regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency.  As epidemiologists expand studies of the smallest particulate matter, its harmful health impacts become increasingly apparent.  Coal plants emit heavy metals into the atmosphere, including mercury, which settles into surface waters and bioaccumulates in fish, which can in turn cause neurological damage if eaten.  Illinois has mercury advisories on 100% of its surface waters, but Iowa does not track mercury contamination.  Finally, Iowa allows use of coal ash for fill in unlined quarries without groundwater monitoring, a practice that has led to groundwater contamination in dozens of sites around the U.S. 

 

The intervenors are represented by Attorneys Carrie La Seur and Jana Linderman of Plains Justice, a public interest environmental law firm based in Cedar Rapids.  Says La Seur, “Utility regulators across the country are denying permits for new coal plants, and investors are pulling out.  This is a very risky time to propose a coal plant.”  Dr. Maureen McCue of Physicians for Social Responsibility emphasizes: “The harmful health impacts of coal plants are undisputed, and it's simply immoral to construct a giant new source of greenhouse gases.” 

 

Local Marshalltown residents express concerns about impacts on local health care services, and particularly the health impacts on vulnerable elderly residents of the Iowa Veterans Home.  Sally Wilson, Associate Professor of Biology at Marshalltown Community College, worries that Marshalltown has been chosen for the plant because the community is perceived as lacking the resources to fight a large corporation.  “We deserve clean air and water as much as any other town in Iowa,” says Wilson.  “It is critical that we protect our environment for the health of our community.  It makes no sense to build a coal plant when much better alternatives are now available.”

 

 The IUB has scheduled the administrative hearing in this docket to begin January 14, 2008, in the auditorium of the Iowa Veterans Home in Marshalltown.

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but I think there is a vacancy on the Iowa Utilities Board right now. Let's hope that whoever gets that job before January 2008 is not favorably disposed to coal.

Incidentally, the Iowa Farmers Union represents family farmers, unlike the Farm Bureau which represents corporate ag interests. 

I didn't have a chance to watch the forum.

What did you think?

Iowa Independent's liveblog is here:

http://www.iowaindep…

You can also find links to video from the forum at that site.

Noneed4thneed thought it was a great night for Biden and Edwards:

http://commoniowan.b…

Reaction from MyDD readers is here:

http://www.mydd.com/…

I still think it was insane for Obama to skip this one, given that up to two-thirds of caucus-goers may be over 50.

UPDATE: I finally got around to watching the debate. I thought all five candidates did well. As an Edwards supporter, I was very happy with his performance and his ability to make connections: for instance, between strong unions and pensions, between the solvency of Social Security and the need to stop taxing wealth at a much lower rate than work is taxed.

But I imagine that supporters of the other candidates also found much to like in their performances.

The format was also much better than the previous debates (it helped having only five people on stage). Judy Woodruff did a good job of asking direct questions and following up when warranted. 

More like this debate, please! 

The Iowa Independent catches new Iowa Senate Republican Leader Ron Wieck in a candid moment:

“Our primary function, our primary goal during the next session will be to do everything that we possibly can to regain the majority,” Wieck said.

So there you have it, folks.  Iowa Republicans aren't interested in doing what's best for Iowa.  They aren't interested in crafting law to better serve residents of the state or even of their own districts.  They are 100% devoted to exploiting every event, first and foremost, for political gain.

Note: I am cross-posting to Bleeding Heartland my latest installment in MyDD's partisan candidate diary series.

I was planning to write this post about my impressions from Tom Harkin's steak fry on Sunday. However, my camera wasn't working for some reason, and there have already been other good diaries covering that event.

So my thoughts turned to words from a different time and place.

Last Thursday I attended my temple's services for Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish new year. As is my habit when the service starts to drag, I began leafing through the front section of the High Holidays prayer book, which contains quotations, legends and meditations on themes relevant to this time of year. You Jewish readers out there may also enjoy reflecting on those parts of the prayer book if you spend long hours at Yom Kippur services. [note: are there any other Jewish readers of Bleeding Heartland?]

One of the snippets that caught my attention contained a quotation attributed to the Baal Shem Tov, the 18th century rabbi who founded the Hasidic Jewish movement. I don't have a link, but I jotted down the relevant portion:

The first time an event occurs in nature it is a miracle; later it comes to seem natural and is taken for granted.

The quote reminded me of something I had recently read in The Atlantic Monthly. That magazine is 150 years old, and to celebrate that milestone editors have been publishing decades-old excerpts on a particular theme in each issue. In the October 2007 issue, the magazine reprints portions of articles about philanthropy, including a piece written by Alice Hamilton for the May 1930 issue:

I must … join with those who stand for state pensions for the aged poor rather than support given through private charity …
[…]

In thinking of old-age pensions we must take into consideration a great new class of needy people. These are not men who have lived all their lives on the edge of poverty; they are self-respecting artisans, skilled workers, men who have made good wages and held their heads high. At a moment when such a man still possesses all his old skill of eye and hand, and the gains of long experience, he finds himself no longer wanted, of less use in our American social system than his little feather-brained daughter with a year’s training in a business school …

It will be harder and harder for him to find any sort of job, even if he dyes his hair and makes pitiful efforts to hide the senility of fifty years … Personally, I am very loath to accept the verdict that a dependence on the benevolence of the uppermost class toward the lowest class is the only possible American way of solving the problem of the poor, or even that it makes for a healthy state and contentment at the bottom of society …

The American workman may earn high wages … but even if he does, he must live all his working life under the shadow of three Damoclean swords: sickness, loss of his job, and old age, and against these our country, the richest in the world, gives him no protection.

Think about that. In 1930 it was not a given that the elderly should receive any kind of state pension. Our country, “the richest in the world,” offered no protection for those who had worked hard their whole adult lives.

Probably there were plenty of naysayers who thought that efforts to adopt a state pension were a pipe dream which would never get through Congress.

Not long after that, Social Security became a reality, and now there are few programs that seem like a more “natural” obligation of our government than that one.

I am no expert on the history of the labor movement, but the activists who were advocating the right to collective bargaining in the late 19th century must have sometimes felt like it would be a miracle for them to ever succeed. It took decades before the right to join a union seemed “natural” even in the manufacturing sector, and we still haven't done enough to strengthen organized labor.

During this presidential campaign, John Edwards has set out very ambitious policy proposals, like his universal health care plan and his plan to end poverty in 30 years. Some journalists and even some progressives have dismissed these proposals as pandering or a waste of time, since Congress would (supposedly) never adopt them.

I think it is important for the Democratic Party's standard-bearer to set the bar high. Let's not become resigned to the idea that it would take a miracle to get a universal health care plan through Congress. Let's accept that our country, “the richest in the world,” has an obligation to provide universal access to health care, and let's debate the best way to get that done.

Let's talk about who has the best combination of ideas to end poverty or bring the United States closer to true energy independence.

Let's work to make the progressive achievements of the next presidency seem as natural decades from now as Social Security seems to us today.

By putting these goals front and center, John Edwards is not only running a strong campaign, he is inspiring his competitors to be better candidates as well. I hope that all Americans will benefit, no matter who ends up winning the Democratic primaries.

Final note: it's a few days late, but for all you Jewish MyDD readers, here is the Rosh Hashanah message released by John Edwards:

“Rosh Hashanah is an occasion for contemplating the past year and considering our future path.  What have we done to make the world a better place?  What can we do to improve ourselves as individuals?  Elizabeth and I will be asking these questions as we wish all those who observe the high holiday a Happy New Year and pray for a year of peace, prosperity and good health for our brothers and sisters.”

This afternoon Senator Pat Leahy and Senator Chris Dodd introduced the Leahy-Specter-Dodd Amendment to the Defense Authorization bill. The amendment will restore habeas corpus and help us regain our moral standing in the world.

Sign up to be a citizen co-sponsor at http://restore-habeas.org.

Also, follow Senator Dodd's call to action above and call up your Senators and ask them to co-sponsor the Leahy-Specter-Dodd Amendment.

The fight will be hard and the vote, which will come later this week, is likely to be very close. But upholding the rule of law demands action and that's what Senators Dodd and Leahy are calling for.

This week’s roundup is brought to you by Clem Guttata of West Virginia Blue with a major assist from Mike Paulle. Thank you Mike!

Cross-posted from blog.johnedwards.com

Tonight, Senator John Edwards addressed the nation in a televised response to President Bush’s speech on Iraq.  In his address, which aired on MSNBC after President Bush’s remarks, Edwards reminded the American people that Congress can – and must – force an immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq. Edwards’ comments marked the first time any presidential candidate has used a national televised address to speak to the American people about President Bush’s refusal to change course in Iraq.

Watch it here:

In the address Edwards said that the only way to force the Iraqis to take responsibility and negotiate a political solution is to begin withdrawing troops – immediately.  Edwards criticized President Bush for refusing to change “the only strategy he has ever had – more time, more troops and more war.”

Edwards concluded his remarks by reminding the American people that Congress must answer to them. “Tell Congress you know the truth – they have the power to end this war and you expect them to use it,” said Edwards. “When the president asks for more money and more time, Congress needs to tell him he only gets one choice: a firm timeline for withdrawal.  No timeline, no funding. No excuses.”

The transcript from the address, after the fold.

Senatorial failure and state wacko conservative Bill Salier (His current position as chair of Tom Tancredo's Iowa campaign neatly sums him up, really) is circulating a petition expressing his desire to see judge Robert Hanson impeached for declaring Iowa's gay marriage ban unconstitutional.  Because, as we all know, people like Bill Salier will be unable to help themselves from getting gay marriages if they become legal, and pretty soon that slippery slope will lead to him having three or four simultaneous gay marriages with his dogs.

Here is Mike Gronstal's response:

Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal laughed when he heard about the effort.  

 And later:

Gronstal said Salier’s impeachment demand was not an honest attempt to oust Hanson. “Let’s be blunt: The likelihood of that happening is zero, and he knows it, and you know it.”

 House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy doesn't mince words either:

“This is a very emotional issue, but we are not interested in politicizing the judicial branch to help the failing presidential campaign of Tom Tancredo,” the Des Moines Democrat said in a statement. 

This is the perfect way to talk about this issue – go right back at the crybabies.  Major props to our elected leaders today.

The Los Angeles Times released a new Iowa poll on Tuesday:

Clinton 28

Edwards 23

Obama 19

Richardson 10 

The results have been discussed at MyDD and Open Left:

http://www.mydd.com/…

http://www.openleft….

Jonathan Singer made the key observation at MyDD:

I do just want to add that the “likely” voter screen for the LA Times and Bloomberg is a bit loose. Doing some back of the napkin math, the likely voter model used here would include more than 870,000 Democratic caucus participants — which is a bit more than the 122,000 or so that participated in the last Democratic caucus. While there may be more excitement this time around than there was in 2004, there isn't that much more excitement. So what does that mean? A lot of the folks the Times and Bloomberg are deeming “likely” voters or caucus goers are in fact unlikely to participate come January. Most in fact. As such, while these numbers might be good gauges of the general sentiments of these states, I'm not certain how good of gauges they are of the sentiments of those who are actually going to play a large role in selecting the next Democratic nominee.

The problem with almost every Iowa poll I've seen lately is that the universe of likely voters sampled suggests a ridiculous number of caucus-goers.

If turnout exceeds 150,000 at the Iowa caucuses on the Democratic side, I'll be surprised. If it exceeds 200,000, I'll be shocked.

My sense is that a lot of Hillary supporters and leaners have never caucused before and won't caucus this year either–especially if we have to go the week after New Year's. 

Well that was fast.  Not two weeks after she signed a pledge stating that she wouldn't campaign in states scheduling invalid early primaries, Clinton is already on her way to breaking her pledge:

So, do five funders and “a discussion about her senior agenda at the Century Village West in Boca Raton” a constitute a “public appearance” that is campaigning?

You be the decider.

Mark Daley, her spokesman in Iowa, said “she is doing 5 fundraisers and a public meeting about seniors issues. This doesn’t violate the pledge as Florida is not in violation of the DNC rules at this time.”  He initially said Sept 30 is the deadline for them to set their date but said later he wasn’t sure of the deadline.

“Sen Clinton is very much committed to Iowa’s special role and that is why she signed the pledge,” he said.

Ah.  But the pledge she signed says nothing about deadlines or Sept. 30.

There isn't any question about it.  This clearly violates the letter and spirit of the pledge she signed. 

I have been invited to write one front-page post each week at MyDD in support of John Edwards. It appears on Tuesdays as part of their “candidate blogger” series (two Clinton supporters post on Mondays, two Edwards supporters on Tuesdays, two Obama supporters on Wednesdays, and a Dodd, Biden and Richardson supporter on Thursdays).

I keep forgetting to cross-post these at Bleeding Heartland. I've put today's installment after the jump. It's about how Edwards is keeping New Orleans on our national media's radar screen, and why that is important.

Just got this from the Public Campaign Action Fund. If you haven't supported them in the past, please consider doing so. Public Campaign and its action fund do a lot of great work.

Dear [desmoinesdem],

 

Thanks to your fast action, Insight Communications, the cable company that last week refused to air our new ad about Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), has relented: they will air the ad this week.

We beat McConnell and his donors when we forced Insight Communications to back down. Now we need to take this opportunity to claim the right to run this ad on the air. We’re $14,500 short of our goal – if 145 people gave an average gift of $100 we’ll make it. If you can give more, great. Every dollar you contribute affirms the freedom of speech we fought for last week. Please make a donation to help us reach our goal today.

Help us keep this ad on the air. Consider making a donation today!

Insight, whose executives have donated thousands of dollars to McConnell and whose head lobbyist and CEO are both McConnell allies, tried to keep our ad, which talks about McConnell's ties to big money special interests, off the air.  We know censorship — and blatant political favor-trading  — when we see it and we immediately launched our petition effort to get Insight to air the ad.  On Friday evening we got the news: Insight backed down.

Now we need to make sure Kentuckians see this ad. Help us keep it on the air by making a donation today!

While we celebrate this victory for our ad, and for the light it will shed on McConnell's habit of acting on behalf of his campaign patrons instead of his constituents, we also celebrate a larger victory for our freedom of speech.

We have already seen our elections dominated by those with the most money who can buy the biggest megaphone, and as a result we have seen the priorities of our elected officials skew towards the narrow interests of the few and the wealthy.  But when you, and your fellow activists, signed the petition Friday and called for an end to Insight's censorious tactics to further control debate you took an important step in changing those priorities.

The ad will run in Kentucky through the week, as often as our funds will allow.  Thank you for all you've done.

David Donnelly
National Campaigns Director

P.P.S. The ad, and Insight's reaction got quite a bit of news coverage, read up here for more, and check out these YouTube clips of television coverage.

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee had a bumper sticker contest and just selected a winner from about 10,000 entries.

To see what slogan won, and order a free bumper sticker, go here:

http://www.dscc.org/…

Thanks to the Senate 2008 guru for alerting me to this in his excellent weekly roundup, which you can find here:

http://www.mydd.com/…

Or just check the Senate 2008 guru blog here:

http://senate2008gur…

Atrios runs an occasional series of “Simple answers to simple questions” at his blog Eschaton.

Opening the opinion section of the Des Moines Register on Sunday, I found a piece by Richard Doak under the headline Still resisting deadlines, does Bush even want to end war?

No.

David Donnelly of the Public Campaign Action Fund sent out this very disturbing e-mail today:

Dear [desmoinesdem],

Cable giant Insight Communications pulled our new ad on Mitch McConnell at the 11th hour last night.  Insight's executives have donated $17,000 to McConnell. Now they are helping him even more by engaging in political censorship to keep this ad, which criticizes McConnell for his special interest politics, off the air.

Sign this petition to tell Insight Communications that you won't stand for political censorship.

All the other broadcast networks, including NBC, ABC, and CBS and another cable system are running the ad after reviewing its content for accuracy. Why won't Insight air it? 

And what role did Insight lobbyist Keith Hall or Insight CEO Mike Willner, both McConnell donors and allies and big players in the national cable industry, play in making this decision to censor the ad?

We need answers to these questions and we need your help to hold cable giant Insight accountable for political censorship, which is a blatant move to help out their favorite big money politician, Mitch McConnell. Their decision to pull the ad at the last minute, and give us no notice or opportunity to respond to their concerns, is highly irregular and reeks of a potent witch's brew of big money donors, lobbyists with connections, unaccountable big media, and a powerful Senator.

Insight Communications is censoring political speech — sign this petition and tell them to take their big money muzzles off our airwaves.

High-powered lobbyists and moneyed special interests already dominate campaigns and political debate in this country — when they try and censor ads that draw attention to this disparity they must be held to account. If big money politicians and big media win, we all lose. Only in the narrowest sense is this is a fight about whether our ad runs. At its core, it's a fight about freedom of speech.

Sign the petition today and get this ad back on the air.

Thanks for your work,
David Donnelly
National Campaigns Director

P.S. Now more than ever we need to keep this ad running in Kentucky.  Please donate today to keep it on the air.

Here is David's diary at Daily Kos on the same subject:

http://www.dailykos….

If you haven't joined Public Campaign yet, you should:

http://www.publicamp…

I forgot to set the VCR. From the looks of this thread at MyDD, I didn't miss much:

http://www.mydd.com/…

interesting tidbit here from Todd Beeton, who was watching the post-debate tv coverage:

The participants in Frank Luntz's post-debate focus group of 29 Republicans were unanimous in their disappointment in the candidates. A solid majority was pleasantly surprised by McCain and was most disappointed in Rudy Giuliani. They also called Romney a waffler.

Something about how Chet Culver describes gay marriage always struck me as funny, but I could never quite put my finger on it.  I knew there was some dog whistle politics thing about it, and today with this whole new gay marriage flap I finally realized what it was.  Check out this quote:

“I have said personally that I believe marriage is between a man and a woman, and I’ve been consistent on that. At the same time, I think it’s important we let the judicial process work itself out here,” [Culver] said.

Do you notice it?  The guy never makes any judgement at all.  He believes that marriage is between a man and a woman, not necessarily that it should be.  And, I think we can all agree, he is correct for the state of Iowa.  Marriage is indeed only between a man and a woman.  And, until we let the judicial process work itself out, it will certainly remain between a man and a woman.  Culver doesn’t make a judgment one way or the other, because you can’t go from an “is” to an “ought.”  And while I’d certainly prefer that he come out and say that he thinks gay marriage is fine, he is coming about as close to the line as you can go without a real potential for negative repercussions.

Also, The Big Lug would be a pretty good name for a gay cover band.

While bloggers were busy overreacting to Bill Richardson's jokes, the governor stated some obvious and important truths about our transportation policy during a campaign stop in Creston on Tuesday.

He makes a lot of good points in the write-up in today's Des Moines Register, so I encourage you to click through and read the whole thing:

The United States’ transportation system is “fixated on highways” and should include more emphasis on energy-efficient modes of travel with planning to ensure preservation of open spaces, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson said here today.

Richardson told about 80 people at Creston’s historic railroad depot that he’s been struck by the massive traffic jams and congestion he’s encountered while visiting as many as three states per day while seeking the Democratic presidential nomination.

The problem, he said, has been caused by poor planning by policy makers who have suffered from an inability to look forward to provide alternatives to driving automobiles.

“What I am seeing right now is all across the country … individuals in cities asking for a more active federal role in not just funding bills to create new highways, but also light rail transportation, commuter rail, and open spaces,” said Richardson, whose campaign talk was periodically interrupted by the rumble of freight trains and a Chicago-bound Amtrak passenger train that rolled past the restored depot.

It's long past time for us to shift some of our transportation dollars away from new road construction.

For more information about transit-oriented development, click here or  click here.

For great analysis of high-speed rail's potential in the U.S. and other aspects of transportation policy, check out some of the diaries posted by BruceMcF at Daily Kos.

We saw how lazy Fred Thompson was when he motored around the state fair in a golf cart, but with his new ad we now have an explanation:

No healthy person's head bobbles around that much.  Let's just say that it won't be too surprising when he flip flops on stem cell research.