UPDATE: The House passed this bill 235-181, with 14 Republicans voting with the Democratic majority and 7 Democrats voting against the bill. Bush says he will veto. Will Senate Democrats cave and remove the tax and renewable electricity standard provisions (see below)?

The U.S. House is set to vote on a big energy bill today (Thursday), and it’s the best bill we’ve seen yet on this subject. After the jump I am posting a detailed statement from Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office describing some of the key provisions in the bill:

http://www.speaker.gov/legisla…

Title XIV would break new ground at the federal level by establishing a “renewable electricity standard”:

Establishes a 15 percent national renewable electricity standard (RES). This market-based mechanism will require electric utilities to use renewable energy to generate 15 percent of their electricity or to purchase renewable energy credits from others to meet this standard by 2020.

That provision will be a major sticking point with Republicans in the Senate, as will this:

Upholding Fiscal Responsibility and Bipartisanship

•    This legislation does not add to the deficit and all revenue offsets resulted from bipartisan negotiations.

•    Revenue raisers include $13 billion in scaled-back provisions that repeal tax breaks that were needlessly given to Big Oil companies at a time of record profits. The bill also includes other revenue raisers from the President’s budget.

•    Specifically, the bill closes a loophole written into the international tax bill (H.R. 4520) and rolls back the 2005 Energy Bill tax break for geological and geophysical expenditures. These provisions are narrowly targeted toward the large integrated oil companies.

•    In addition, to ensure that oil and gas companies are paying their fair share of taxes, it closes a tax loophole that allows big oil and gas companies to game the system by understating their foreign oil and gas extraction income.  

•    Other revenue raisers in the bill come from the President’s budget and from bipartisan negotiations with the Senate, the largest of which strengthens reporting on the value of stock to make sure that gains are taxed.

On the e-mail loop of the Iowa Renewable Energy Association, there has been some discussion of whether these measures could survive a Senate vote. An excerpt from a piece in “Energy & Environment News” (I am not a subscriber so can’t post a link) quotes Tom Harkin as saying that some of the good provisions may be stripped from the bill so that it can be passed this year without President Bush vetoing it.

Although Chuck Grassley apparently would vote for the renewable electricity standard himself, his top priority is securing a multi-billion-dollar giveaway to the corn-based ethanol industry. If the renewable standard or tax credits for solar and wind power have to be stripped from the bill to get it through the Senate, he is likely to go along with that.

Alternatively, Harry Reid may delay consideration of the energy bill if he thinks he doesn’t have the 60 votes to break an expected Republican filibuster. That would make passage of the bill this year very unlikely.

Bottom line: the House picture is encouraging, but the Senate picture is depressing. Please consider donating to one of our fine Senate candidates in other states, so we can elect more and better Democrats to the Senate in 2008.

The full text of the statement from Pelosi’s office is after the jump. 

Ok, so this isn’t exactly a timely post for my “daily” caucus countdown feature, but this will be a quick post with more detailed ones to come over time.

Who are you caucusing for?  And why (as simply put as possible, please)?  Finally, if for some reason your candidate isn’t viable, who would your second choice be?

I asked this question over at my site and I’m hoping that a broader audience here at BH will give me a greater idea and provoke some good discussion.

John Deeth posted an update on legislative endorsements, along with a helpful chart showing which candidates Iowa Democratic legislators endorsed in 2004, and which counties the legislators represent.

The latest tally is Clinton 19, Obama 18, Biden 14, Edwards 10, Dodd 3 and Richardson 1. 

Deeth's chart also shows who has yet to endorse, and who those legislators backed (if anyone) four years ago. 

I listened to most of the NPR debate this afternoon. Although I am usually more interested in hearing the candidates debate domestic policy, I thought it was good for NPR to go in depth on a few foreign-policy issues. The questions were solid and substantive, and the candidates had to go beyond their usual sound-bite answers on Iran, China and immigration policy.

It’s too bad Richardson couldn’t make it because of a funeral he was attending, because the format probably would have suited him. I have heard him answer questions on immigration, and he makes a strong case on that issue.

I thought Edwards, Obama, Clinton, Biden and Dodd all did pretty well.

If you listened to the debate, what did you think?

Mark Halperin’s post-debate scorecard is here:

http://thepage.time.com/excerp…

I’m going to try and start a new feature that will bring about a daily post specifically about the Iowa Precinct Caucuses, which are now only 30 days away.

As a history primer, I recommend checking out Hugh Winebrenner’s quick piece on the the history of the caucuses that he wrote for IowaPolitics.com.

And how do you caucus?  First of all, check out desmoinesdem’s post series (parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6) on how the caucuses work.  Secondly, check out the IDP’s FAQs on the caucuses.

And finally, some of the campaigns and groups have started making videos on how to caucus.  Check them out below the fold.

Let me know if you have thoughts on more daily features and things you want to see in the comments.

Come on, Steve King, jump in against Tom Harkin! You are clearly thinking about it:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007…

Harkin would trounce King. We wouldn't pick up the 5th CD, but almost any other Republican would be an improvement on King. Getting that bigot out of Congress would take his megaphone away.

In related news, I saw a Rathje bumper sticker in Des Moines the other day. That's a first.

I just got a robocall paid for by “Common Sense Issues,” whatever that is. It was a brief survey with questions intended to generate interest in Mike Huckabee. The voice said the phone number at the end of the call too fast for me to catch it. The voice referred me to this website, “Trust Huckabee”:

http://www.trusthuckabee.com

These were the questions, as closely as I can remember them. I may have missed some–I didn’t have a pen and paper handy–but I sat down at the computer within a minute of the call ending, so my memory is fresh.

Do you plan to participate in the Republican caucus on January 3?

Do you plan to participate in the Democratic caucus on January 3?

On the issue of abortion, do you consider yourself pro-life?

Do you believe that a marriage should be between one man and one woman?

[I can’t remember the wording, but it was something about Bill Clinton praising Mike Huckabee saying everyone likes him, followed by a question about whether that makes me want to learn more about Mike Huckabee.]

Does the fact that Mike Huckabee raised his state’s education rating from 49th to [can’t remember, some number in the 20s] make you interested in learning more about Mike Huckabee?

Does the fact that for the last 19 years there has been either a Bush or a Clinton in the White House concern you? [I think that was the question–it may have been: does the possibility of having either a Bush or a Clinton in the White House for 27 years concern you?]

Those are all the questions I can remember. The voice was talking very fast at the end, encouraging me to go to www.trusthuckabee.com, saying the call was paid for by Common Sense Issues and giving a phone number with a 719 area code. (I couldn’t catch the whole number, and I don’t have caller ID.)

I don’t know if I would have gotten more questions if I had answered some of the robocall questions differently (e.g. if I had said yes, I identify as pro-life). Probably the questions would have been the same no matter what I said, though.

I am not an expert on campaign finance law. I noticed this disclaimer on the Trust Huckabee website:

Trust Huckabee is a grassroots independent organization committed to educating voters to support Governor Mike Huckabee for the Republican Nomination for President of the United States. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee.

Since the robocall did not explicitly ask me to caucus for Huckabee, I assume there is no potential FEC problem. But I also saw this on the Trust Huckabee website:

Governor Huckabee can win the Iowa Caucuses if you commit yourself to attending your Precinct Caucus and become a Precinct Captain. It is all about numbers and organization. We have the numbers, we have the names, we need to build the organization.

Join Now!

Can an independent group recruit precinct captains for Huckabee’s presidential campaign? Do FEC disclosure requirements come into play here? Any election lawyers in the house?

UPDATE: Daily Kos user “omegajew” got the same call and reminded me that there was an anti-gay marriage question in there, so I added that to the list above. I can’t remember the exact wording, but what I wrote is a decent paraphrase.

Des Moines Mayor Frank Cownie endorsed Barack Obama today. Cownie has become a leader on the environment in promoting a green economy to combat global warming.

The real promise of Senator Obama’s presidency isn’t just the plans he’ll bring with him into the White House, it’s the visionary leadership he’ll demonstrate once he gets there. Barack Obama will put an end to the bitter partisanship that’s stopped us from making progress on the urgent challenge of global warming. He’ll tell the American people what they need to hear, not just what they want to hear. As President, he’ll restore America’s standing in the world and lead a global effort to meet this challenge once and for all.

Cownie was re-elected this year with 80% of the vote.

Cross posted at Century of the Common Iowan. 

Almost every day there’s a new Iowa poll released, and I haven’t been able to keep up with them all. If you are a poll junkie, I recommend checking MyDD and Open Left frequently, because the front-pagers and diarists there never miss a chance to analyze a new Iowa poll.

Several polls released during the last week, including the latest from the Des Moines Register, show the top three candidates bunched closely together (typically within the margin of error), with Obama leading, Clinton in second and Edwards in third place.

Obama supporters are triumphant to see him taking the lead in the Real Clear Politics five-poll averages for Iowa. However, there is good news for all of the top-tier candidates in these polls.

Obviously, Obama has to be happy with his overall lead in Iowa, which is small but has been found in several polls. His favorability rating seems high, and he seems to be tied with Hillary, or even leading a bit, among women.

A cautionary note for Obama is that he has blowout leads among voters under 35 (in the Des Moines Register poll, a 48-19-17 lead in this age group). Not only are younger voters historically less likely to caucus, they are also virtually absent from many precincts. We have very few residents under age 40 in my precinct, for instance.

Depending on the survey, it also seems that Obama is trailing Clinton and Edwards among rural and small-town voters, who punch above their weight when the state delegates are tallied. Obama would clearly be better off if Iowa had a primary.

Hillary Clinton’s campaign has to be concerned that her overall support has slipped slightly, and she may no longer be leading Obama among women voters.

Most worrying for Clinton, several surveys have shown that she trails Edwards and Obama among second choices, and the Des Moines Register poll indicates that her unfavorable rating among Iowa Democrats is about 30 percent.

On the other hand, Clinton still seems to have a slight lead among older voters, and her support may be more evenly spread across the state than Obama’s. If she can bring out large numbers of new women voters, Iowa is still winnable for her. Remember that Obama has not yet faced much scrutiny in the media, but that will change now that he is leading in Iowa.

As an Edwards supporter, I am satisfied with the recent Iowa polls. He is within touch of the lead, and often leads among Iowans who have caucused before. The Des Moines Register poll assumes that one-third of caucus-goers on January 3 will have never caucused before, but I do not believe there will be that many newcomers.

Several polls indicate that Edwards leads among second choices as well, which could help him pick up as much as 5 to 10 percent on January 3.

I anticipate that on caucus night, the precinct captains for Clinton and Obama will be focused on keeping the main rival’s delegate count down, and will not be trying to undermine Edwards in the same way.

Richardson and Biden don’t seem to be surging or dropping considerably in Iowa. I still sense that both candidates have room to gain support as undecided voters make up their minds. Frankly, as an Edwards supporter I would like to see Richardson and Biden stay below the threshold in as many precincts as possible.

What do you think?

The Yepsenity of the day is causing a stir on the political blogs. Yepsen published this post about the so-called “Illinois caucus”:

Barack Obama’s campaign is telling Iowa college students they can caucus for him even if they aren’t from Iowa.

His campaign offers that advice in a brochure being distributed on college campuses in the state.  A spokesman said it’s legal and that 50,000 of the fliers are being distributed.

The brochure says: “If you are not from Iowa, you can come back for the Iowa caucus and caucus in your college neighborhood.”

Given that lots of students in Iowa’s colleges and universities are from Obama’s neighboring home state of Illinois, the effort could net him thousands of additional votes on caucus night.

[…]

Tommy Vietor, a spokesman for Obama’s campaign, said “we have no intention of doing something here that is in any way illegal or that will raise questions about the credibility of the caucuses.”  He said election laws allow students to register and vote where they go to college and that means they can caucus in those precincts as well.

That’s fine but these are the Iowa caucuses.  Asking people who are “not from Iowa” to participate in them changes the nature of the event.

I think Yepsen is wrong and owes the Obama campaign an apology. Students from other states who attend colleges in Iowa can choose to vote either in their home states or in Iowa. That is well-established.

The Obama brochure is aimed at students attending schools in Iowa. It urges them to come “back” and caucus in their neighborhoods. Clearly they are not trying to bring in thousands of students who are neither from Iowa nor attending school in Iowa.

If the caucuses were on January 21 instead of January 3, this wouldn’t even be an issue. Many students from other states caucused in Iowa City, Ames, and other college towns in 2004. There is nothing unfair about that.

I would hope that all the campaigns are trying to identify college students supporting them and trying to encourage those students to come back to campus to caucus, if their home towns are outside Iowa.

Mike Allen picked up the story for Politico, quoting staffers for other campaigns who tried to imply that Obama is cheating:

A Hillary Rodham Clinton campaign official said: “We are not courting out-of-staters. The Iowa caucus ought to be for Iowans.”

And a Clinton spokesman leveled a thinly-veiled accusation at Obama later in the day.

“We are not systematically trying to manipulate the Iowa caucuses with out-of-state people,” Mo Elleithee said.

“We don’t have literature recruiting out-of-state college students. We didn’t bus in folks from out of state to the [Democratic party’s Jefferson-Jackson dinner]. We didn’t bring in out-of-state activists to the Heartland Forum.”

In fact, Clinton is counting on the support of some out-of-state students attending Iowa universities. Sarah Sunderman of Iowa State University, who was announced in a news release as a leader of the “Hill Yea” Students Leaders for Hillary, told the Des Moines Register in October that “she will drive back early from her home in Minnesota to take part in the Jan. 3 caucuses.”

Chris Dodd for President Iowa State Director Julie Andreeff Jensen said in a statement on Saturday:

“I was deeply disappointed to read today about the Obama campaign’s attempt to recruit thousands of out-of-state residents to come to Iowa for the caucuses. … ‘New Politics’ shouldn’t be about scheming to evade either the spirit or the letter of the rules that guide the process. That may be the way politics is played in Chicago, but not in Iowa.”

I see no evidence Obama’s campaign is trying to get volunteers from other states to come here for a short time and then caucus on January 3.

Julie Andreeff Jensen worked on John Kerry’s campaign in Iowa before the last caucuses. She must be aware that there were college students from other states who caucused for Kerry.

Shame on the Clinton staffer who accused Obama of trying to “manipulate” the caucuses. It is totally legitimate to encourage your own supporters to come back to their college campuses for caucus night.

If Obama wins the caucuses, Hillary’s going to have to come up with a better excuse.

I'm going to have to catch the rerun later on C-SPAN. If you saw the candidates speak, let us know what you thought.

Noneed4thneed is posting his thoughts at Century of the Common Iowan:

http://commoniowan.blogspot.com/

UPDATE: If you’ve seen the Brown and Black forum, share your thoughts here as well.

Ben Smith of Politico broke this story, but Josh Marshall's team at Talking Points Memo is doing the most follow-up. (By the way, Josh should get the Pulitzer next year for his coverage of the Bush administration's abuse of power in firing U.S. attorneys for political reasons.)

Anyway, click the link. It turns out the NYPD didn't just drive Rudy to visit his girlfriend, and didn't just drive Rudy's girlfriend when he wasn't around, they also sometimes drove her friends and family in a city-owned car. 

Also, New York City cops sometimes walked her dog.

No way can Rudy's campaign last another month. 

UPDATE: Take a minute and fourteen seconds out of your life to watch this video.

I was raised by a Rockefeller Republican. Some Bleeding Heartland readers are old enough to remember what they were like. There are some still around in the Republican Party rank and file, but not many among public figures. You hardly ever see them in the news, except in a story like this one, where they complain that no presidential candidates are seeking their support.

I went to college in the late 1980s in Massachusetts, where most of the Republicans were like my dad: liberal on social issues, for protecting the environment, somewhat conservative on economic issues, but not supportive of supply-side (aka “voodoo economics”) either.

There was a very close gubernatorial election while I was living in Massachusetts, and a lot of liberal Democrats voted for the Republican, William Weld–just like my mother, a lifelong Democrat, used to vote for Bob Ray in the 1970s.

I lived overseas for most of the 1990s, and when I returned to Iowa in 2002, the biggest change (aside from the ubiquitous SUVs and minivans) was in Republican culture. I was aware of the religious right’s growing power during the 1980s, so I knew the party had become much more conservative. Chuck Grassley, considered a right-winger when he was elected to the Senate in 1980, was considered a moderate Republican two decades later.

But I missed the talk radio explosion during the 1990s. Watching Bill Clinton’s presidency from afar, I could tell that there was a lot of over-the-top Clinton hatred among Republicans. But I had no idea of how the Rush Limbaughs and Michael Savages of the world had changed the core values of so many conservatives.

If you haven’t seen it already, check out the piece Joe Klein wrote after he attended Frank Luntz’s focus group of Republican voters during the latest GOP presidential debate. Here’s one key passage:

In the next segment–the debate between Romney and Mike Huckabee over Huckabee’s college scholarships for the deserving children of illegal immigrants–I noticed something really distressing: When Huckabee said, “After all, these are children of God,” the dials plummeted. And that happened time and again through the evening: Any time any candidate proposed doing anything nice for anyone poor, the dials plummeted (30s). These Republicans were hard.

I am not at all surprised by the focus group’s mean-spirited reaction toward any mention of a program that helps the poor. Today’s Republicans are told repeatedly by their opinion leaders to be suspicious of anything that would spend their tax dollars on poor people.

If you heard about a plan to require lead testing for all Iowa children, you might ask some questions: is lead poisoning a big problem here? What health and behavioral problems does it cause? What proportion of kids are already getting tested for lead? What are the main sources of lead poisoning in children?

In contrast, look at this young Republican’s knee-jerk reaction to the news that a Democratic legislator wants mandatory lead testing in Iowa:

Another example is a bill that requires mandatory testing of children for lead. Odd bill I thought. Why would this be such an issue? Until Representative Ford tells a sob story of a child in his district that ate paint and got sick. Blah, blah, blah…kids could get sick…and apparently it’s the state’s job to baby-sit every child in Iowa. Though I can’t help but wonder what dumb child would eat paint! And what irresponsible parent would not know their child is eating paint?

Impressive combination of ignorance and heartlessness there, you have to admit. We must be vigilant against any attempts to protect children’s health! Never mind that a lead test is much less expensive than paying to deal with developmental disabilities caused by lead poisoning.

Getting back to Klein’s piece about the Republican focus group that watched the debate:

But there was worse to come: When John McCain started talking about torture–specifically, about waterboarding–the dials plummeted again. Lower even than for the illegal Children of God. Down to the low 20s, which, given the natural averaging of a focus group, is about as low as you can go. Afterwards, Luntz asked the group why they seemed to be in favor of torture. “I don’t have any problem pouring water on the face of a man who killed 3000 Americans on 9/11,” said John Shevlin, a retired federal law enforcement officer. The group applauded, appallingly.

Part of me agrees with Todd Beeton’s reaction to Klein’s commentary:

Truthfully, this could only come as a surprise to someone who dismisses principled criticism of the right by the left as “partisan bickering;” someone who, for every criticism levied on the right, feels the need to balance it out with a similar criticism of the left as though both parties, both sides were created equal. No, Mr. Klein, they really are out of their minds. Welcome to the world.

In fairness to Klein, I know intellectually that a lot of Republicans hate any programs that benefit poor people, and particularly the children of illegal immigrants. But I can see how it might be shocking to sit there in a room of typical conservatives and see them frown on a politician pointing out that immigrants are also “children of God.”

For me it remains beyond belief that so many conservatives, who ostensibly believe in individual liberty and small government, have no problem with the United States torturing suspects who haven’t been charged with a crime, much less convicted.

I don’t know what can be done to steer mainstream Republican culture back toward constitutional values and limited government power. Any ideas out there? Would a big Democratic election victory in 2008 bring back the Bob Rays, or would it just convince Republicans that they need to be more like Tom Tancredo?

P.S.- I was checking in with the Edwards supporters in my precinct a few days ago, and one of them told me she recently saw a car driving around the Des Moines area with an “Impeach Hillary” bumper sticker. The deranged Clinton hatred among some Republicans is remarkable.  

Sorry, I don't have a link for this story–I just heard about it from someone who teaches at Drake University in Des Moines. Apparently a faculty member in the political science department was able to convince Drake administrators to open the Olmsted Center on the night of January 3, when the dormitories will still be closed.

So if students want to come to Des Moines to caucus and then camp out in Olmsted with their sleeping bags, they will have a warm and safe place to stay.

Of course, Drake students from other parts of Iowa may prefer to caucus in their home towns, and Drake students from far away may have friends in the Des Moines area to stay with.

But kudos to the Drake administration for giving students who want to participate in the caucuses another option. 

Students out there, who besides Obama has significant support in the Drake student body? I'm curious about Republicans as well as Democrats. 

UPDATE: The Des Moines Register ran this story on Saturday about efforts to get college students to caucus:

http://www.desmoinesregister.c…

Well, I thought Rudy Giuliani’s campaign would go down in flames because of his connections to the federally indicted Bernie Kerik, or because he blew off attending the Iraq Study Group meetings in order to give $100,000 speeches.

But little did I know that the mayor billed city agencies for his security detail during daytime visits to his mistress and allowed said mistress to use the New York Police Department as her “personal taxi service”.

The guy is more brazen and corrupt than I ever imagined.

Anyone think his campaign can last until January 3?

UPDATE: Keep an eye on Josh Marshall’s Talking Points Memo blog. His crew are digging into various aspects of this story, and he is posting frequent updates:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/

This weekend the Democratic candidates for president will be cris-crossing the state, particularly around the Des Moines area to attend several debates and forums hosted by a variety of groups.

First, early Saturday afternoon, five Democrats (Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd, John Edwards, Dennis Kucinich, and Barack Obama) will face questions from real folks from around Iowa at the Heartland Presidential Forum which is hosted by Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement, the Center for Community Change, and a variety of other organizations.  The format differs from typical debates as the candidates will be on stage with real people who tell their stories and ask their questions, hoping for a direct answer.  You can find out more about the event here.

Later that evening is the Iowa Brown and Black Presidential Forum, affiliated with Urban Dreams and broadcast live by HDNet television.  All eight of the presidential candidates will be participating in the debate live at North High School in Des Moines.  More information here.

Finally, next Tuesday is the NPR/Iowa Public Radio Democratic Presidential Candidates’ Debate which will be broadcast on NPR and be available as a webstream on NPR’s website.  The six major candidates will be participating.  You can submit your questions for the debate here.

Are you planning on going to these debates?  Or watching them?  If so, feel free to blog about about them here.  We want coverage and we want your thoughts.  Who seemed the most real?  Who had the right take on the issues?  Who did the audience respond to?  These are questions that committed activists like yourselves can answer better than the political pundits and the campaigns themselves.

One more quick question: Have any of you loyal readers heard about the problems involving the Brown and Black Forum that Chase Martyn writes about here at Iowa Independent?  I know that members of my family have been looking for a way to purchase or get tickets to the event (being families from the area with children at North High–the location housing the event–should be a pretty good reason) but the only information they could find is calling Urban Dreams.  When my family member called Urban Dreams earlier this week, they had no idea how the tickets were being distributed.

Any ideas?

I didn't watch the debate, but the consensus on the liberal blogs seems to be that Huckabee did very well.

I have been saying for months that we are in a world of hurt if Republicans nominate Huckabee, particularly if we end up having to run Hillary against him.

Anyone out there watch the debate? What did you thnk? 

UPDATE: Over at Daily Kos, grannyhelen posted these hilarious YouTubes of a woman in CNN’s focus group of undecided Republican voters saying that after watching the debate, she leans toward John Edwards:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/…

When the presidential candidates release plans to deal with important issues, such as education, global warming, or veterans’ affairs, the Des Moines Register more often than not buries the story in the middle pages of the Metro Iowa section.

That is especially true for the second-tier candidates.

Tuesday morning I picked up the Register and saw a photo of Chris Dodd and Joe Biden on the front page of the main section. Wow, that’s unusual. But what do you think the story was about?

Both Dodd, a senator from Connecticut, and Biden, a senator from Delaware, each are hoping to emerge and knock out a front-runner. But both facing an increasing amount of questions about whether they are different enough for voters to tell them apart.

Increasing amount of questions? From whom? I talk to Democratic caucus-goers literally every day, and while I have heard undecided voters praise Dodd and Biden many times, I have never heard anyone express concern that they may not be different enough for voters to tell them apart.

The Register goes on to tell us that Dodd and Biden get along well, charter planes together sometimes, and are “old school” senators. It mentions a recent Saturday Night Live sketch making fun of their similarities and quotes experts suggesting they are political insiders who lack “sex appeal.”

I expect meaningless process stories from most of the national press corps, but couldn’t the Des Moines Register at least pretend to cover the substance of the campaign on the front page?

Haven’t the Register reporters who cover the town-hall meetings and house parties all over this state noticed that caucus-goers want to hear where the candidates stand on the issues?

That is especially the case for the second-tier candidates, because most Iowans are less familiar with their records. Dodd and Biden have plenty to say about how they would govern and what their priorities would be–not that you’d get any idea about that from the article.

I noticed this quote near the bottom of the piece:

Kathy Elsner, a dentist in Des Moines who supports Dodd, said voters should look seriously at people running for president, and not just their campaign style.

Please, Des Moines Register editors, take Elsner’s advice and assign your reporters to compare and contrast the candidates’ proposals for dealing with the issues.

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.