So I inadvertently started a flamewar on Daily Kos and MyDD today by posting a diary about the Clinton campaign being missing in action from July 4 parades in the Des Moines suburbs. The Clintonistas were outraged that (to their mind) my headline implied that the Clinton campaign did not take part in any parades, when we all know that Bill and Hillary marched in the Clear Lake parade.

You can find the DKos version of the flamewar here here or the MyDD version here (the angry Clinton mob was a little less active at MyDD).

My point was that there was no Clinton campaign presence at the Windsor Heights parade I attended, and according to others I talked to, Clinton's campaign didn't have a vehicle in the Urbandale or West Des Moines parades either.

That surprised me, because Obama, Edwards and Richardson were well represented with campaign workers and/or volunteers. (The organizer of the Windsor Heights parade told me later that Biden's campaign was also in the parade, but I didn't notice them.) 

The Edwards people were able to get quite a few supporter cards signed during these parades. We were watching for people who waved or cheered as the Edwards truck rolled by, and three or four people ran up to those spectators and asked them if they would sign up as Edwards supporters. I didn't catch the number for the WDM parade, but I think they got about 65 cards signed during the Urbandale parade and another 15 to 20 in Windsor Heights.

The team also handed out a lot of Edwards stickers in WDM and Urbandale, but had run out early in the Windsor Heights parade.

Obama and Richardson people were handing out tons of stickers in Windsor Heights. My husband, who was with the kids on the side, was pretty sure he saw an Obama staffer with a clipboard as well, who was probably getting supporter cards signed. He wasn't sure whether anyone with the Richardson group was handing out cards. But yesterday evening at the big Windsor Heights celebration in Colby Park, I saw lots of people still sporting their Obama and Richardson stickers.

The point of my diary was that this was a missed opportunity for the Clinton campaign. Thousands of people watch these parades. I've got to believe there were Clinton supporters and leaners who would have signed up if there had been staffers out there spotting them and asking them. I know staff was probably preoccupied with the Clintons' Iowa tour, but the fact that Obama was in Iowa didn't prevent his campaign from having a strong presence in all of the parades.

A woman I know well in my neighborhood is a Clinton leaner (she says she needs more info about the other candidates before making up her mind). She's a general election voter who rarely votes in primaries. Despite many contacts from me last cycle, she and her husband did not attend our precinct caucus. So she is unlikely to turn up on a list of Ds to target in my precinct. I saw her along the parade route with her kids. If there had been a Clinton presence, I bet she would have taken a sticker or possibly signed up. They could have then targeted her closer to caucus time for GOTV efforts. But how will they find her now?

With Teresa Vilmain running the show and the Vilsacks on board, and plenty of money, I am surprised that the Clinton campaign didn't make sure they had a strong presence in all of the Des Moines-area parades.

What do you think, and which campaigns did you see in your towns? 

Incidentally, the only Republican campaign in the Windsor Heights parade was Brownback's; they were also in Urbandale and West Des Moines. I assume that some of the other Republican candidates were in those larger suburban parades. 

I'm off to march in the Windsor Heights parade with the Edwards group. I don't think I'll be doing any blogging today, but noneedthneed is going to be very busy, so click over to Century of the Common Iowan (link is on the blogroll at the right) for his write-ups.

While you're at it, check out the other Iowa liberal blogs, including John Deeth and Iowa Independent, which have published lots of campaign coverage lately.

I must say, though, that I find it distracting to read those liveblog posts that go backward in time as you're reading from the top down.

Got an e-mail from Tom Harkin announcing that his wife Ruth is endorsing Hillary. Here's an excerpt:

She feels that women who are lucky enough to serve in public office had, and continue to have, a responsibility to opening doors and paving a new way for those seeking other leadership roles. And as Ruth looked closely at who is best suited to do the job of President and to inspire a new generation of leaders, Hillary topped the list.

Thanks a lot, Ruth. If Hillary loses the general to a Republican who puts two or three more Alitos on the Supreme Court, I hope you'll apologize to all women.

Of the many things that bother me about the Hillary Clinton candidacy, one of the biggest is this idea that women are supposed to back her as a pathbreaker (with the corollary that people who don't back her are sexist or can't handle strong women). Hillary would be a weak general election candidate, and I don't even think she would be the best president out of the current field.

The e-mail also mentions that Tom Harkin has no plans to endorse any of the presidential candidates. Smart move, senator. 

Remember how the Republicans always told us Clinton's impeachment wasn't about the sex, it was about the lying? That is, the false affadavit Clinton signed in connection with a civil case.

Scooter Libby committed perjury (lied to a grand jury) and made false statements in connection with a criminal case. Not just any criminal case, an investigation into the leaking of a covert CIA agent's name. Despite his all-star legal team, Libby was convicted on four out of five counts of perjury and making false statements.

Well, Bush made a big show of saying he would fire anyone involved in leaking covert CIA agent Valerie Plame's name to the media. But when push came to shove, he didn't do it, and he made sure that convicted felon Scooter Libby didn't see a day in prison for lying to the FBI and to a grand jury.

Today, after a court ruled against Libby's efforts to delay his prison sentence until after he had exhausted his appeals, Bush commuted Libby's sentence to probation and a $250,000 fine. That fine is meaningless–Bush pioneers have been raising millions of dollars for Libby.

TPM Cafe has been keeping track of reaction to the commutation by politicians of both parties. 

I found this nugget at Talking Points Memo particularly interesting. This comes from the Department of Justice manual on commutations, with emphasis added by Josh Marshall:

Section 1-2.113 Standards for Considering Commutation Petitions 

A commutation of sentence reduces the period of incarceration; it does not imply forgiveness of the underlying offense, but simply remits a portion of the punishment. It has no effect upon the underlying conviction and does not necessarily reflect upon the fairness of the sentence originally imposed. Requests for commutation generally are not accepted unless and until a person has begun serving that sentence. Nor are commutation requests generally accepted from persons who are presently challenging their convictions or sentences through appeal or other court proceeding.

Even Bush's commutation didn't follow legal procedures.

But hey, it's ok if you're a Republican. 

Got a card in the mail today announcing that Tom Vilsack is joining the Des Moines office of Dorsey & Whitney LLP. According to the law firm's website, the firm has 18 offices, approximately 650 lawyers, and approximately 850 other support staff.

The card lists 16 other attorneys in the firm's Des Moines office and says Vilsack “will be maintaining a general practice including but not limited to commercial law and litigation and advising clients in the fields of energy conservation, renewable energy and agribusiness development.”

Judging from the envelope, this was a mass mailing. I don't know why I got one–could have been sent to all registered Ds in central Iowa, or just people who have contributed to the Iowa Democratic Party. 

A new poll came out today showing Hillary Clinton and John Edwards way out in front of everyone else in Iowa.

Here are the results from the American Research Group (May's support in parenthesis)…

Clinton 32% (31%)
Edwards 29% (25%)
Obama 13% (11%)
Richardson 5% (8%)
Dodd 2% (2%)
Biden 2% (3%)
Kucinich 1% (4%)
Gravel 1% (1%)
Clark 1% (1%)
Undecided 14% (14%)

At first, I was surprised Hillary was leading with over 30% when other polls show her around 20%. However, if you look at the trends, Hillary has consistently been in the low 30's in this poll, except for May when she had just 23%. In fact Hillary is basically right where she was back in December before her campaign even started (32% to 31%).

Ezra Klein seems to think John Edwards' support is declining, but when you look at the trends in the American Research Group polls, it shows Edwards gaining support. In the past month he increased by 4%. Overall, he has improved from 20% back in December to 29% in June. 9% is the largest increase from any candidate.

If you look at Obama's trends in the American Research Group polls, he peaks at 23% in February right after he announced. He has been on a downward trend since then. I think Obama's support is stronger than the 13% he is polling because the polls is of likely caucus goers. Obama has made a big splash with younger people who would not be included in this poll.

Another interesting thing about this latest poll is looking at the preference by party. Among those who identified themselves as no party, 39% were in favor of Edwards, 31% in favor of Clinton, 11% in favor of Obama, and 3% in favor of Richardson. Edwards' support here only strengthens his campaigns claim that Edwards is in the best position to win independent voters and in red states.

Here's analysis from past ARG polls in May and March .

Originally posted at Century of the Common Iowan. 

I agree 100 percent with a column by David Yepsen. It's about how the “Destiny” tax proposal will lose and deserves to lose.

Here's the link to his piece in the Des Moines Register today. It's hard to know what to excerpt, because he makes a lot of good points. Here's one Chris Woods and I haven't discussed previously on this site:

The supporters' big hope now is that all the groups that will get additional money will vote for it, while those opponents will forget there's an election on July 10. That's what the supporters were trying to do when they scheduled this for a summertime special election – manipulate the outcome.

Which raises another issue for state lawmakers to consider. Why should governments and interest groups be allowed to schedule elections in an effort to affect the results? Got a tax increase or bond issue to get approved? Then schedule the election when people might not be paying attention – like mid-July – so a small handful of voters can push it through.

It amounts to governments playing games with their people. No wonder folks get cynical. Legislators should put a stop to it by adopting an idea Secretary of State Mike Mauro and Gov. Chet Culver have suggested: Governments should be required to hold bond elections and special ballot elections on just a handful of pre-determined dates. For example, once every six months, the state could specify a date on which all bond referendums, ballot initiatives or elections to fill vacancies must be held.

Also in the Sunday Register, you'll find a write-up of this opinion poll, which found that people in the three counties that will be voting oppose the Destiny proposal 2 to 1.

The question is, will these people turn out to vote? The groups that will benefit from the spending are working to get supporters to vote–as a member of the Des Moines Art Center, I got an e-mail recently containing an absentee ballot request form as an attachment.

I think the “Destiny” proposal will go down in flames. It probably wouldn't have passed even if the promoters hadn't sent out misleading direct-mail pieces supporting it (the first one didn't mention the sales-tax hike, and another one included a quote from an elderly woman who later said she never made the comment attributed to her in the mailer). But those mistakes certainly hurt their cause too.

without hitting a presidential candidate during the next week in Iowa.

Noneed4thneed's got a comprehensive list of who'll be where over at Century of the Common Iowan. Click through for info on impending visits by Biden, Dodd, Obama, Clinton, Romney, Huckabee and Tancredo.

Got an e-mail from the Biden campaign:

July 3rd: Enjoy a day at the State Capitol. Stop by the Yankee Doodle Pops and then come see Senator Biden's 2:30pm press conference on the steps. Several major State Legislators will be endorsing Biden and you can join in the festivities.

July 4th: March with Senator Biden in the Urbandale Parade. Line up is at 9:30am on 70th St between Palm Dr. and Roseland Dr. The parade starts at 10am. Wave to the crowds and share the excitement of Independence Day as you and Senator Biden< make your way through Urbandale. July 4th: Come to Senator Biden's backyard Barbecue hosted at the home of Nate and Meg Boulton. Guests are welcome at 1:30pm. This is a great chance to experience the Senator and Presidential Candidate one on one, ask questions, and enjoy a beautiful day. For details or to RSVP please contact Raena, Raena@JoeBiden.com or 515-440-2008.

Anyone know who's planning to endorse Biden?

Anyone keeping track of the statehouse endorsements so far? The only one I know of for sure is Staci Appel, who's on the Hillary bandwagon. 

I've been somewhat critical of the Culver administration when it comes to environmental issues, but I'm proud of Chet Culver upon reading this release that came to me on the Sierra Club e-mail list:

OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
Governor Chet Culver « Lt. Governor Patty Judge
 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 29, 2007

Contact: Brad Anderson
 (515) 281-0173

 

GOVERNOR CULVER APPOINTS NEW EPC BOARD MEMBER

 

PAUL JOHNSON NAMED TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION COMMISSION

(Des Moines)  Today, Governor Chet Culver appointed Paul Johnson of Decorah to the Environmental Protection Commission.  The EPC is a panel of nine citizens who provide policy oversight of Iowa's environmental protection efforts. EPC members are appointed by the Governor and confirmed by vote of the Senate for four year terms.

“Paul is a family farmer who will bring valuable experience to this important Board,” said Governor Culver.  As Governor, I am committed to improving water quality and protecting the land, lakes, rivers and streams we all love.  I am confident Paul will make a valuable contribution to the EPC’s efforts to protect Iowa’s environment.”

PAUL JOHNSON – Paul Johnson holds a BS (1966) and MS (1969) in Forestry from the University of Michigan and an honorary doctorate from Luther College in Decorah, Iowa. His international experience spans Peace Corps service in Ghana, West Africa (1962-4), forestry teaching in Ghana (1967-68), doctoral research in tropical forest ecology in Costa Rica (1969, 1970, 1971), co-directorship of the Luther College Nottingham Year (1980-81) in Nottingham, England and numerous educational and research visits to countries such as Sweden and the former Soviet Union.

Since 1974, Paul and his family have owned and operated Oneota Slopes Farm near Decorah, Iowa. Their farm has included dairy, corn, soybeans, hay, beef cattle, sheep and Christmas trees.
 
Paul's distinguished public service career includes three terms in the Iowa State Legislature (1984-1990) during which he co-authored the 1987 Groundwater Protection Act, the 1989 Resource Enhancement and Protection Act (REAP) and the 1990 Iowa Energy Act. In addition, Paul served as Chief of the Soil Conservation Service (now the Natural Resources Conservation Service) at the United States Department of Agriculture from 1993-1997 and as Director of the Iowa Department of Natural Resources from 1999-2000.
Additional service includes two terms on the National Research Council's Board on Agriculture (1988-1993) and participation on numerous foundation boards including the Aldo Leopold Foundation. He has been the recipient of many awards over his years of public service, among them the prestigious Hugh Hammond Bennett Conservation Award from the Soil and Water Conservation Society of America.

Earlier this year Culver appointed four new commissioners to the EPC: Dale Cochran, Ralph Klemme, Charlotte Hubbell and Susan Heathcote. I heard later that one of men would be unable to serve because it turned out that he was not currently farming (at least one, possibly two of the four commissioner positions is reserved for a farmer). I don't know if that was Cochran or Klemme.

In any case, Paul Johnson is an outstanding environmentalist and a good Democrat too (he ran against Latham in the 4th District a few years back). 

After winning the 1st and 2nd Districts in 2006, Iowa Democrats have their sights set on Tom Latham's seat in Iowa's 4th District.

Dr. Selden Spencer is committed to running again in the 4th district, a district Gov. Culver won with 59% of the vote. In 2006, Dr. Spencer had a winning message, but he entered the race late and was fighting an uphill battle. He is starting early this time around and has been busy raising money. 

This week Dr. Spencer sent this email out to supporters …

“This may be the most important date of this election for taking back the 4th District for the people of Iowa. June 30, 2007 is the second quarter filing deadline for the Federal Election Commission. On this day, all federal campaign committees must report their donations. Together, we can elevate this race to the national level. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and other national groups, will be looking at this quarter to find the candidates and campaigns to target to win in 2008…and they want to help our race here in Iowa. We need to show support in the district now. I am fully committed to winning in 2008, but my commitment is not enough. It takes more than one person to create change. I am asking you to match your previous donation of $ or send $25, $50, or $100 to show Washington we are serious about 2008. It may seem early, and like I mentioned before, this is a big quarter to show support. Your contribution now means more support from the national committees who will elevate this race to the most competitive level in 2008.

Every dollar you can send will show the DC bigwigs that Dr. Spencer is the real deal. Every dollar you can send has the chance of turning into more money for the Spencer campaign down the road. Please help out Selden Spencer's campaign by donating whatever you can before Saturday's deadline.

The way last night's exchange was set up, it was hard to declare an actual winner or loser in terms of substance and reference to the issues (especially since they all seemed to finish each other's sentences and agree for the most part, save for Gravel and Kucinich).  Without trying to sound racist, Obama seemed poised to make a huge splash with the audience–he is, after all, an African-American man speaking to a largely African-American audience.  However, that didn't happen.  And maybe that's a good thing.

Overall, it seemed that a lot of candidates stood out.  Clearly, Clinton stood out with her response that garnered her the only standing ovation.  Biden stood out for the ridiculous things he said and the look he put on Al Sharpton's face (it must prove that the pundits and media elite really are his biggest constituency).  Richardson again demonstrated that while he may be an excellent person-to-person on the ground campaigner, he still has a way to go in the debates.  And Chris Dodd seemed to sound like the most invigorated, presidential-esque candidate up on the stage.

Did anyone do exceptionally poorly?  Of course not.  But it is clear that there wasn't really a favorite last night, someone who swept the field and dominated.

MSNBC's First Read documents a lot of the different responses from media outlets and the pundits last night on who stood out, who 'won,' and who bombed (though I don't understand how they thought Biden stood out, as they said so here).  Clearly, the media elite seem to think that Clinton and Obama continued to stand out.  But that's because the Clinton-Obama race is the horserace for them to follow and cover.  The tit-for-tat between the two campaigns is what they're looking for.

So, I'm putting the question to you, registered Bleeding Heartland users: Who  do you think stood out the most or performed the best (in essence: won) last night's forum? And don't just limit your answers to submitting your response in the poll; leave a comment explaining your vote, too.  This is your community site.  Make it worth your while.

As usual, I'm taping the debate to watch later, after the kids are in bed.

If you watched, let us know what you thought. Who won? Who missed a great opportunity? Who had the best line? 

As I talk to voters in my precinct who caucused in 2004, I am finding that very few of them have watched the first two debates. I think people will tune in more in the fall. 

There have been some claims that Hillary Clinton is “push-polling” against her main rivals, Barack Obama and John Edwards in Iowa and New Hampshire.

Her campaign appears to have commissioned some detailed message testing in both states. That is different from a sleazy push-poll (such as what Bush did to McCain in South Carolina in 2000, having people call up voters asking if it would change their opinion if they knew that McCain had an illegitimate black child).

Nevertheless, this kind of survey rubs some voters the wrong way. This Daily Kos diarist described it as “push-ish” polling.

I don't have a problem with message testing–I was a respondent on a lengthy message-testing survey commissioned by Chet Culver before last year's gubernatorial primary. I do think it's sleazy for Democrats to attack each other using right-wing talking points, but I don't blame campaigns for wanting to know which messages are going to be effective for and against them.

That said, I would really like to know which candidates are doing these surveys, and what kinds of messages they are testing. If you get a call like this, please try to remember the questions (taking notes if needed), and put up a diary afterwards. Or, if you prefer, you could share your info with me by e-mail (desmoinesdem AT yahoo.com). I will not reveal your identity.

I’ve blogged about it before over at Political Forecast, but I’m not too enthusiastic with the way that Senate Democrats have responded to Jim Nussle’s nomination to be Director of the White House’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB).  Maybe it is all of the work I did during the gubernatorial race talking about Nussle’s failed leadership on the House Budget Committee as it’s chair–leading us into horrible deficits, uncontrollable spending, and ridiculous tax cuts for the richest Americans.

Or maybe it is just that we know he’s a confrontational hack who shouldn’t be charged with leading such a complex and tough office, one that requires someone with some kind of expertise is actual management and appropriate budgeting techniques.  The reality, however, is the that OMB is largely a political office and it made sense for Bush to pick someone who was willing to give up the next two years to fight with Congressional Democratic leadership about the Republican President’s budget.

Still, the least the Democrats could do is raise objections to Nussle’s past experience–deficits and debt–and instead call for someone more inclined to have positive budget experience, yet be known for compromise and hard work, not hackery.

I guess that’s why I’m slightly surprised at today’s Register story where Jane Norman reports that Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND), the chair of the Senate Budget Committee, is not all that enthusiastic about Nussle’s nomination and has some reservations.  Maybe that’s just political cover for the left flank by telling grumpy activists like me that they’re not planning for anything great coming from, but are going to confirm him anyway.

Or maybe it is some serious action that would make Conrad more inclined to grill him during confirmation hearings.  Conrad is no liberal in the way that people consider Iowa’s Tom Harkin (who has indicated he’ll likely vote to confirm Nussle), but Conrad has a strong populist streak on trade and labor issues.  Nussle’s record on those issues, particularly with the budget, is not good at all.  Kudos to Conrad for stepping up, and I hope he takes it to another level.

Desmoinesdem has previously written about Project Destiny–a tricounty joint venture between Polk, Dallas, and Warren Counties to increase the sales tax in the three communities by one cent–and urged you to vote against the plan.  And now the South Central Iowa Federation of Labor AFL-CIO, will announce on Thursday that they plan to oppose the sales tax increase as well.

From an advisory put out today:

“Union leadwers say voters should consider that “basic needs” are not being met in the three-county area. A regressive tax to finance so-called “quality of life” efforts such as bicycle trails, they say, should not take precedence over citizens’ fundamental needs.”

With strong labor opposition, who knows how the effort will fare on election day, July 10th.

Discussing and talking about the proposal is no easy subject.  Almost two weeks ago, CityView’s cover story was dedicated to the debate over Project Destiny.  The story offered more insight on the project, its supporters and opponents than the Register or any other local news stations have offered.  I recommend reading the full story to truly understand the debate behind Project Destiny.

The biggest opposition to the tax comes from taxpayers groups and citizens who feel that the sales tax increase is a regressive move that hits the poorest residents in these three counties the hardest.  And they’re right.  The fact is, the fundamentals for citizens in these areas aren’t even being provided and that is something that local government leaders should focus on first and foremost.

While I’m all about lowering property taxes in the area–because we could certainly use the decrease–the problem is that current tax revenue isn’t being spent wisely.  Not to mention that we’re already giving out large property tax breaks to the corporations who would receive the most benefit from the proposal were it to pass and they were to have their property taxes reduced further.  Inherently, the system is complex and difficult, but the focus should be on infrastructure priorities and essentials.

I want more trails, culture, and focus on the arts in the region.  But I can’t write off a disproportionate tax increase on the low-income and poorest people of the community to make our region better.  I just can’t.

For more information on the proposal, check out the supporters’ website and the opponents’ website.

The Richardson campaign sent an email out this afternoon with this surprising bit of information from internal polling they have done…

The Governor has rocketed up 10% among likely Iowa caucus goers in just three months, and now stands at 13%. No other Democratic candidate has made gains anywhere close to that over the same time period. In fact, amongst the likeliest caucus goers (those who attended the 2004 caucuses, voted in the 2006 primary and are definite to attend next year's caucus) the Governor has overtaken Senator Obama for 3rd place.

Richardson has been moving for the past few months in Iowa. It just shows what a couple million dollar of good, creative TV ads can do.

What is surprising about this, however, is that Obama's numbers are falling in Iowa.  He has been traveling the state, doing smaller events, yet he isn't moving up in the polls.

The Richardson campaign is also saying they will outraise John Edwards this quarter. If they do and if they are ahead of Obama in Iowa, I think it would mark that Richardson has officially entered the 2nd-tier and is knocking on the door of first-tier status. 

For those of you who don't already know or who haven't yet registered, the second annual YearlyKos Convention is coming up quickly, August 2-5 in Chicago.  Last year was the first convention and it was held in Las Vegas, so I wasn't able to make it.  This year, however, I registered in January and have been making plans to go and be involved.  You can get details about the convention here .  So far, the convention is bringing out a lot of prominent bloggers and political leaders.  Here's a quick political guest list so far:

• Sen. Chris Dodd
• Sen. Dick Durbin
• Ret. Gen. Wes Clark
• DNC Chair and Gov. Howard Dean
• Fmr. Sen. John Edwards
• Sen. Barack Obama
• Gov. Bill Richardson

All of the Presidential candidates listed above will also be taking part in a presidential leadership forum hosted by the convention on August 4th.  They're still waiting to hear back from other candidates about their attendance.

Registration for the convention ends July 14th, so hurry up and get registered now.

There is also some fantastic networking and organizational opportunites to indulge in at YearlyKos, with lots of different breakout sessions and social opportunities.  One highlight this year will be Regional Blogging Caucuses.  I have the privilege of being one of the Organizers/Coordinators of the Minnesota-Wisconsin-Iowa Blog Caucus and I'm looking to get a list of Iowa folks who are planning on attending YearlyKos and would be interested in participating in the caucus.  They'll only be 90 minutes long and will provide ample time to talk about regional hot topics, as well as to get to know fellow bloggers from the region.  I'll post more information on the Regional Caucuses as I learn more.

Anyway, if you're planning on attending, leave a comment and let me know!

While this isn’t exactly Iowa-specific or Iowa-centered, I thought it was worth noting today’s MSNBC story on the left-leaning emphasis of journalistic contributions to federal campaigns and PACs.

Marc Ambinder decides to frame the issue as “all journalists are liberals” and says it doesn’t help fight the “liberal bias” title usually assigned to the MSM by the right-wing noise machine.

I’m more inclined to agree with Matt Yglesias:

“This effort at ginning up controversy by revealing political contributions made by employees of media organizations seems fundamentally misguided. For one thing, no effort is being made to see if the people named have any ability to impact coverage of national politics. They have, for example, a former copy editor here at The Atlantic on their list, but what nefarious influence is she supposed to have had on the magazine’s coverage?”

You can find the full list of journalists and their contributions here.  A large number of the folks listed are producers, copy editors, or other senior positions in journalistic enterprises.  Clearly, personal life issues and personal politics don’t inherently have to enter the work life and the job that one person is doing.  This goes for Republicans and Democrats.

Furthermore, this kind of ‘investigative’ reporting groups the kinds of journalists writing for Bloomberg in the same category as journalists writing for a magazine like The New Yorker.  Journalism isn’t just about writing down the facts of current events and reporting them to the people, there is real investigative work and commentary that can be done–with a clear intent.  Simply put, you can consider it analysis.  Writers for The New Yorker are pretty clear about stating their intent and opinions in their pieces, which make them fundamentally different then the reporting done in a Bloomberg news piece.

Clearly, there are conflicts of interest with some of the people mentioned the in report, but is it really something pervasive among the journalistic community in this country?  I guess that’s for the consumer and the reader to decide.

And if you’re curious for an Iowa-angle, the only journalist from Iowa making the list was Des Moines Register business reporter S.P. Dinnen, who gave $250 to John Kerry in 2004.  His explanation can be found here.

Last November, right before the midterm elections, CityView also did a big cover story on bias in the media, particularly in Iowa.  They covered all angles, including print, TV, and radio.  I recommend reading the full story here as it provides great insight into the efforts of the outlets to maintain their objectivity and it also provides a good list of just who in the Iowa media is registered with which party (if any).

Finally, there is a poll in the extended entry asking if you think there is bias in Iowa’s press.

Seriously, Newsday breaks a story that he couldn't make time to attend the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group meetings, because he was too busy giving $100,000 speeches.

Then his Iowa campaign chairman, Jim Nussle, takes a job in the sinking ship that is the Bush White House.

Then his South Carolina campaign chairman gets indicted on federal cocaine charges.

Talk about a bad week! Stick a fork in him–he's done. 

UPDATE: Mike Glover of the AP covers Rudy's answers to some tough questions. Apparently he expects us to believe that he quit the Baker-Hamilton commission because it “didn't seem that I would really be able to keep the thing focused on a bipartisan, nonpolitical resolution.”