Iowa was a “red state” in 2004 and many attribute the rural electorate in Iowa as “leaning Republican” – and most definitely more conservative than the average urban voter,  New numbers released by the Center For Rural Strategies are showing a slight shift in favor of Democrats on “generic ballot” questions:

Noneed4thneed is going to have to explain to me how to embed a YouTube video. Meanwhile, here is a web link to the latest edition in Bill Richardson's “job interview” ad series:

http://www.youtube.c…

He focuses on what he did as governor of New Mexico regarding global warming and renewable fuels. 

Environmentalists are an important voting bloc in Democratic primaries. I know some environmentalists for Edwards and some for Obama, but most are undecided. I think many would consider Richardson as well, so he is smart to be emphasizing this aspect of his resume.

UPDATE: The significant announcement was that the Edwards campaign has appointed county chairs as well as rural outreach chairs in all 99 counties in Iowa. 

Got this e-mail from the Edwards campaign. Anyone planning to be in Waterloo on Tuesday? I have no idea what the “significant announcement” is all about:

 

ELIZABETH EDWARDS TO ATTEND CAMPAIGN OFFICE OPENING IN WATERLOO

 

Will Also Make Significant Organizational Announcement

 

Waterloo, Iowa – Elizabeth Edwards will visit Iowa on Tuesday, June 12^th to talk to caucus goers about Senator Edwards’ detailed plans and vision for America .  Mrs. Edwards will officially open the John Edwards for President campaign office in Waterloo and will make a significant new announcement about the campaign’s statewide grassroots organization.

TUESDAY, JUNE 12TH, 2007
6:00 PM
Elizabeth Edwards will to attend John Edwards for President Campaign office opening
425 Franklin Street
Suite B
Waterloo, Iowa

At Political Wire, Taegan Goddard called my attention to this poll by the Center for Rural Strategies.

Although rural voters are more conservative than the average American, this poll found that rural voters prefer a generic Democratic candidate for president by 46 percent to 43 percent. Bush crushed Kerry among rural voters in the 2004 election, winning that demographic by 19 points.

This isn't my main reason for supporting John Edwards for president, but I think Edwards is the candidate best able to connect with the rural and small-town electorate, bringing more of them back to the Democratic Party. I know quite a few people in the sustainable agriculture community, and many told me during the last election cycle that Edwards was by far the favorite candidate in their localities.

Needless to say, I suspect that Hillary Clinton would be the worst candidate we could nominate from this perspective–the 1990s were the decade in which rural voters abandoned the Democratic Party in droves.

The Center for Rural Strategies also found that rural voters prefer a named Democrat for Congress as well by 46 percent to 44 percent.

This finding about Iraq also caught my eye:

While a narrow majority opposes the war, nearly 60 percent are close to someone serving or who has served in the fighting.

That is a massive percentage. In the Des Moines area, I know of quite a few people who have family members in Iraq, but it's nowhere near 60 percent of the people I know.

I read the Des Moines Register's write-up on Tom Tancredo's visit to NW Iowa in the Sunday edition, and I think it's time for reporters covering Tancredo to go beyond reporting his outrageous claims and ask him to provide some evidence to back them up.

We've known for a long time that Tancredo is a one-trick pony, playing on the right wing's resentment against Spanish-speaking immigrants, fanned by the conservative hate radio machine. 

But I hadn't realized before reading this article that Tancredo actually blames immigrants for every problem plaguing America. Tancredo seems to think the main problem in our education system is the hordes of illegal immigrants whose children flood our schools. Nowhere in the article do I see a hint that a reporter asked him about what percentage of our school districts serve a significant population of illegal immigrants. 

Here's Tancredo talking about health care, channeling Moe Siszlyak of The Simpsons (“I knew it was the immigints! Even when it was the bears, I knew it was the immigints!”):

Tancredo touted his support for “market-place competition” in health care and personal health savings accounts, but added that “were we to deal with the illegal immigration problem, we could significantly reduce our costs for health care.”

Really? Illegal immigrants are a significant reason that the US is spending 14 percent of our GDP on health care? Again, I see no sign that a reporter has asked Tancredo or a Tancredo staffer to provide evidence backing up this claim.

Tancredo linked immigration to our environmental problems, since immigration is largely responsible for our population growth:

“If we continue on this path, there will be a billion people here by the end of the century,” Tancredo added. “And if there are, what do you think that does to our environment? Americans consume more and produce more waste than anybody else. If you're worried about the environment, why aren't you worried about the fact we are bringing in millions and millions of people?

Kind of interesting to see this conservative, anti-choice Republican so concerned about population growth and U.S. consumption. Did the Register's correspondent ask Tancredo whether he has ever sponsored legislation aimed at reducing the amount of waste produced by American consumers?

Also, his population numbers seem way off. What credible source has predicted that the U.S. population will hit 1 billion by the end of this century?

The last straw for me was this passage:

Tancredo touched briefly on what he said was the increased number of vaccine-resistant diseases being introduced into the United States from other countries, then forged ahead to what he said is illegal immigration's impact on national security.

This is loathsome propaganda designed to dehumanize immigrants among the Republican electorate. Maybe the reporter or the DM Register's editors think that “what he said was” is sufficient to suggest to the reader that Tancredo's claim might not be true. But this was crying out for a follow-up by the correspondent–what vaccine-resistant diseases is Tancredo talking about? Are there any?

Did the Register contact the Centers for Disease Control to verify this claim?

Come on, campaign trail reporters, be more than stenographers.

UPDATE: Don at Cyclone Conservatives attended Tancredo's Sioux City immigration forum on Saturday and loved what he heard from Tancredo and his Iowa campaign director, Bill Salier. 

Yesterday, I attended the Progressive Iowa Network/DFIA conference in Iowa City. There were probably 50 people in attendence, mostly from Iowa City/Cedar Rapids and the Quad Cities. There are representives from the Obama, Richardson, Biden, and Kucinich campaigns.

State Senator Joe Bolkcom (D-Iowa City) was introduced and as soon as he got to the podium Rep. Dave Loebsack came in and bumped Sen. Bolkcom. Bolkcom graciously gave up the podium and Loebsack promised this will be the only time this happens.

Loebsack thanked the people in attendance and said he knew a lot of the people here. Thanked Joyce Shulte, who ran against Steve King in 2006. Loebsack said…

I know some of you aren't happy with everything the Congress has been doing. If I was elected in a district where 60% of the people voted for Bush, it would be a lot harder to do what I have been doing. I don't have extraordinary political courage.

Loebsack will be speaking at the ceremony for departing troops in Ottumwa on Sunday. He said the war must come to an end and he is doing everything he can to end it. Bush is not treating properly. Democrats are trying to do that in House and Senate.       

Sorry, I meant to put up a post yesterday about this weekend's campaign events. This is from Saturday's Register:

  Saturday

DEMOCRAT HILLARY CLINTON

Indianola:  4 p.m., fundraiser for state Sen. Staci Appel, Warren County Fairgrounds, Lester Building.

Ames: 6:30 p.m., Story County Democrats fundraiser, Prairie Moon Winery, 3801 W. 190th St.

DEMOCRAT BARACK OBAMA

Dubuque: Noon; canvass kickoff for “Walk for Change” event at Lincoln Elementary School, 555 Nevada St.

BEAU BIDEN, SON OF DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE JOE BIDEN

Des Moines: 1 p.m., house party, home of Drake law professor Dan Power, 3816 John Lynde Road.
Ames: 7 p.m., Story County Democrats fundraiser, Prairie Moon Winery, 3801 W. 190th St.

 

Continue Reading...

Habeas Corpus, written in 1670, is called the Great Writ. Supreme Court Cases have…

“recognized the fact that`[t]he writ of habeas corpus is the fundamental instrument for safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary and lawless state action.'

Yesterday, the Senate Judiciary passed the Habeas Corpus Restoration Act out of committee by a vote of 11-8. All Democrats voted for it, plus Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA). The rest of the Republicans voted against it, including Iowa's Charles Grassley. Maybe Grassley is against individual freedom or maybe he is in favor of lawless state action.

Political analyst Larry Sabato released a list of 15 Freshman Congressman that are vulnerable in 2008.

Sabato writes…

The strong anti-GOP waves we witnessed in 2006 may be somewhat tempered by the time of the next slate of elections. So it follows that several freshman Democrats in districts that are essentially toss-ups–or even normally favor Republicans–could be in grave danger if political winds shift.

One of the 15 Congressman named is Iowa's 2nd District Representive, Dave Loebsack.  Here is what Sabato says about Loebsack…

Up at BlueSunbelt.com, sometime Bleeding Heartland commenter Rob called my attention to a new video released by the Edwards campaign, which features Joe Trippi and Jonathan Prince trying to bake a pecan pie, followed by Elizabeth Edwards making a fundraising pitch.

The video is on the Edwards campaign site here. The idea is that if you donate at least $6.10 between now and June 10, which is John Edwards' birthday, you can get a copy of his mother Bobbie Edwards' famous pecan pie recipe. 

The Edwards campaign sent out an e-mail several days ago regarding this birthday/pie recipe fundraiser, and according to the campaign site, more than 4,000 people have donated.

I watched the video, which was amusing. I'm not sure how many people who You Tube are old enough to recognize the “Odd Couple” music in the background, but the video is unusual enough to stand out among the usual candidate bio material.

Frankly, I have no idea if this is going to work, but Joe Trippi is certainly showing some of that creativity he's famous for.

The Des Moines Register reports that Teresa Vilmain, perhaps the top political operative in Iowa, is replacing JoDee Winterhof as Iowa state director for Hillary Clinton. Vilmain had been working for Tom Vilsack's presidential campaign before he dropped out. Winterhof will now be a senior strategist for the Clinton campaign in Iowa. She commented:

“The significance of the change is bringing on someone at Teresa's level, with her level of experience and history in the state and history with the caucuses,” Winterhof said in an interview. “That is one more piece of evidence of how serious Senator Clinton is taking this campaign, how serious our effort here in Iowa is.”

Nate Willems comments at MyDD that Vilmain is in the same league as John Norris, who ran John Kerry's campaign in Iowa last cycle. Willems adds,

the idea is that Hillary Clinton has made the one big hire that has the potential to turn her campaign around in Iowa.  I don't know if Vilmain can do for Clinton what Norris did for Kerry, but if I were working for either Obama or Edwards in Iowa today, my paranoia level would have just gone through the roof.

Clinton has been lining up the support of some big Vilsack donors as well, including Bill Knapp and most recently Jerry Crawford.

Why these smart Democrats can't see that Hillary would be a disaster for us in down-ticket races (not just in Iowa, but in much of the country) I don't know, but I am not feeling paranoid at all.

In fact, I am glad that expectations for the Clinton campaign will now rise.

What is her excuse going to be if she comes in a distant third on caucus night now?

(Probably that Iowans are sexist, but I hope the MSM won't buy that line. Iowa Democrats are not sexist. We have nominated two women for governor and at least five for U.S. representative.) 

I urge all Iowa supporters of the other presidential candidates to redouble your efforts to GOTV for the candidate of your choice. We have the opportunity to derail the Clinton inevitability train. Let's not waste it.

Anyone watch the Republicans debate tonight? I liked Letterman's line after their first debate–seeing those guys together on stage is like looking at the evil law firm from a John Grisham movie.

I'll be watching later, after kids are in bed. 

Deeth's liveblog is over at Iowa Independent.

If you caught it, who do you think were the winners and losers?

Any references to Newt or Fred Thompson? Rumor has it Newt is going to endorse Fred and try to be the brains behind that operation. What do you think–could Newt be Fred's Cheney? 

Speaking of Republicans, there's an interesting diary up at Daily Kos now, called Ron Paul hates you. For the record, I have never been a fan of Ron Paul, although i did think he performed well in the first Republican debate, in terms of putting forward a coherent ideology. 

UPDATE: Chris Dodd's campaign put up this graphic to call attention to the unequal allocation of time in the debate:

CNN, time to rein in Wolf Blitzer.  

Chris Bowers has the numbers on the Democratic side at MyDD:

Iowa, May 30, 1,238 likely caucus goers, MoE 2.7%. No trendlines
Edwards: 31
Clinton: 17
Obama: 17
Richardson: 10
Biden: 4
Kucinich: 2
Dodd: 1
Gravel: 0
Undecided: 10
Six poll Iowa average: Edwards 27.7%, Clinton 22.8%, Obama 19.8%, Richardson 8.3%

He notes that this polling firm uses automated phone calls.

Political Wire notes:

On the Republican side, Romney is at the front with 31% support, while Fred Thompson comes in second with 15%, followed by Newt Gingrich with 10%, John McCain with 9% and Rudy Giuliani with 8%

I don't know whether Clinton and Obama are really that far back in Iowa, but I think it's fair to say that the recent ARG poll showing Clinton 31, Edwards 26 and Obama 11 was an outlier. 

ARG's likely voter screen for Iowa must be very screwed up. Their results have been very different from most of the other polling here all year.

Meanwhile, go read John Deeth's latest post to see why it's so hard to identify likely caucus-goers. Also, it's getting harder to get random samples in polls because increasing numbers of people either refuse to respond to pollsters or have only cell phones.

I imagine that Obama does quite well among the “only have a cell phone” crowd, so polls may be understating his support.

But if I were Obama, I would fire the scheduler who put him at a west-coast fundraiser instead of in Cedar Rapids on Saturday night. That was a crazy decision. He's rolling in money and is probably going to outraise Clinton in the second quarter. He's trailing in the Iowa polls and should have taken that opportunity to make the sale with party activists.

Ordinary voters won't care a bit about who came to the Hall of Fame dinner. But every one of the 1,000 people who attended can probably influence at least a dozen friends and neighbors. 

 I'm taping the debate and will watch it later, after kids are in bed.

Meanwhile, tell us what you think–who won?

Who surprised you?

Whose supporters will be cringing?

UPDATE: Deeth's liveblog is here: http://jdeeth.blogsp…

SECOND UPDATE: I watched the rerun on CNN. By the way, in case you missed it,  you can find the transcript on the CNN site here:

http://transcripts.c…

Several candidates did well, and I don't think anyone made any big mistakes.

The format was much better than the first debate on MSNBC, and most of the questions were not bad, although Wolf did toss out some really stupid ones, like the hypothetical trying to trick them into saying they would or wouldn't bomb Osama bin Laden if innocent people would die in the attack.

Quick reaction, taking the candidates in alphabetical order:

Joe Biden helped himself. He's got a lot of experience on the Sunday talk shows, and he knows how to answer a question in 60 seconds. Also, on a superficial level, if you are not listening closely to the content of his answers, he sounds confident and forceful. He comes across as a strong candidate, not a guy hovering between the second and third tiers. The substance of his answers was pretty good too. My favorite moment was when he took the question about earmarks and tied it to public financing of elections–big money in politics is obviously behind most of those middle-of-the-night earmarks that could not withstand scrutiny.

Hillary Clinton did ok, but to me she sounded more defensive than she did during the first debate. I thought she handled the trick question about don't ask, don't tell well. I sense that she is playing these debates not to lose, and is mainly focused on avoiding big mistakes. She looked mad when Edwards emphasized that he was wrong to vote for the war, and that Obama was right. Edwards was pointing toward Obama, saying he was right, but from the perspective of the cameras, it looked like he was pointing at Clinton, who was standing in between Edwards and Obama. 

Chris Dodd had substantive answers to the questions, but he is less animated as a speaker than some of the others. He didn't get as much time to answer questions, which was a bit unfair. I liked how he said the first thing he would do as president would be to restore some of our constitutional freedoms, and he would do that on the first day. At some point, I think Dodd is going to have to take a bigger risk in a debate to try to get some media coverage, because right now they don't seem to give him the time of day.

John Edwards helped himself. Like Biden, he came across as a strong and confident speaker. He went out of his way to draw distinctions between himself and the others, and Clinton in particular. He answered the questions well, and on a few occasions got the discussion back on track after it had meandered away from the original question. I liked the line about how the job of the president is to lead, not to legislate. I liked how he pointed out that Clinton and Obama didn't announce in advance whether they would vote for or against the recent Iraq war supplemental funding bill. 

Mike Gravel stuck to form as the angry old man, calling out everyone serving in Congress, and saying Americans need to “grow up” and get used to paying more for gasoline. Although he is not running a real campaign outside of these debates, I am glad he is up there showing everyone what a real liberal looks like (hint to wingnuts: Hillary Clinton is not a real liberal).

Dennis Kucinich has a coherent message and is playing a similar role to Gravel in this campaign. He is going to get a negligible number of votes, even fewer than in 2004, but he is up there showing what the left of the Democratic Party  looks like. His best moment was when he advocated for a single-payer health care system rather than a for-profit system. Unfortunately, there is no chance in hell that single payer could ever pass the Congress.

Barack Obama seemed subdued. He comes across as calm and confident, and he answered the questions well, but I am not sure that he made up any ground on Clinton. It's going to be a little tough for him, because he is running as a different kind of politician who can unite us, and that image would take a beating if he started attacking his rivals. But at some point he may need to come across a little more forcefully (a la Biden) if he wants to dent Hillary's inevitability campaign in New Hampshire. My favorite moment was when he rejected the premise of the question about English as an official language. It played to the image he is trying to cultivate as a uniter, but more important, it was a step toward holding journalists accountable for the framing of their questions.

Bill Richardson's performance was an improvement on the first debate, but he still seemed a little uncomfortable cramming his answers into 60 seconds or less. I liked that he mentioned solar and other forms of renewable energy, not just ethanol. I don't think he made the sale with many people tonight, but I don't think he said anything to inspire undecideds to cross him off their list either. I don't think he's convincing when he says you can get universal health care without any tax increases. A little more straight talk is in order here.

Writers who knew Steve better, and had been reading his work longer, have been sharing their memories and their thoughts about Steve.

Meteor Blades put up a diary at Daily Kos linking to a favorite post by Gilliard, from July 4, 2003. Read through the comments section, because several people link to other posts that are absolute classics as well.

PsiFighter37's diary is in the same vein, and is worth reading through too.

Shanikka shares her perspective as a black blogger, and links to several other fantastic Gilliard posts.

Sara, who commented frequently at Steve's blog as “Mrs. Robinson,” shares her thoughts at Orcinus.

Digby keeps it short and sweet at Hullabaloo.

Jane Hamsher remembers meeting Steve in New York last September–it's worth clicking through to Firedoglake to read the whole thing.

With great sadness, I share the news that went up on The News Blog today:

Steve Gilliard, 1966-2007  

 

It is with tremendous sadness that we must convey the news that Steve Gilliard, editor and publisher of The News Blog (www.thenewsblog.net), passed away early this morning. He was 41.

To those who have come to trust The News Blog and its insightful, brash and unapologetic editorial tone, we have Steve to thank from the bottom of our hearts. Steve helped lead many discussions that mattered to all of us, and he tackled subjects and interest categories where others feared to tread.

We will post more information as it becomes available to us.

Please keep Steve's friends and family in your thoughts and prayers.

Steve meant so much to us. We will miss him terribly.

– the news blog team

Steve Gilliard was one of the early front-pagers on Daily Kos, but I wasn't reading him (or any blogs, really) at that time. He graduated to his own blog, which I started reading occasionally around 2003 or 2004. From time to time I clicked through a link from somewhere else.

I liked his voice. He was funny, even when angry. He seemed to be about my age. Although his life experiences as a black man from New York City were very different from mine, I could relate to his perspective on many things.

I started checking his blog once a week or so. By late 2004 or early 2005 I was checking every day. Last year I was often checking two or three times a day.

I absolutely loved his rants. His writing style was so different from mine, and it seemed to flow so freely.

I also found his optimism refreshing. I can be a pessimist by nature. He was convinced that Bush would not serve out his second term. I didn't agree, but I loved reading the case he made for it.

He was knowledgeable about military history, and I learned a lot from his posts.

I didn't know him at all. A few times I sent him links to articles I thought he'd be interested in, and we exchanged a few e-mails that way. But you know how it is–when you've been reading someone's work for so long, it starts to feel like you know the person.

In February, Steve got sick and went to the doctor for a prescription. He thought he'd be home the same day, but he was immediately admitted to the hospital. His friend Jen started periodically posting updates about his health. I remember early on she warned readers that she thought Steve would be in for a while–she'd never seen him that sick before.

I hadn't known anything about his health problems, because I was not a regular reader of his blog at the time of his first hospitalization for open heart surgery a few years back. Apparently he suffered kidney failure while recovering from that surgery and was on dialysis ever since. An infection of unknown origin put him into the hospital this year. It turned out to be an infected heart valve, so he had open heart surgery again to replace that. Afterwards, Steve never left the ICU. He seemed to be making progress at some times, but then there would be setbacks. At least Jen got to visit him a couple of times after his surgery, and he was able to communicate with her. 

I am devastated for Steve's family, especially his mother, who was with him every day in the hospital. I cannot imagine how hard it would be to see my child so ill and be unable to make him better. His loss will leave a hole in the lives of his friends, and Jen in particular.

I've been missing Steve's writing this spring. It's nothing compared to the unspeakable tragedy for his friends, but I do feel sorry for all of his readers who will miss him as well. 

The News Blog does not currently appear to be searchable. If I can find it later, I will post one of my all-time favorite rants by Steve after the jump. It appeared shortly after the Katrina disaster.

UPDATE: Found it. “We told you so,” which appeared on September 3, 2005, is after the jump. 

Responding to my post on the Obama health care proposal, Obama supporter RF wrote this:

I think we definitely need to know what ideas the candidates have on the major issues, have an idea where each candidate would like to take us.  But political reality is that the president will need to work with Congress on all legislation.  No president will ever get exactly what s/he wants in any piece of legislation.  It’s like obsessing about grammar and style in a rough first draft or an outline of an article, knowing that it will be completely rewritten.

Obviously any president will need to work with Congress. But it is very important to know what the president's starting point for negotiations will be.

I am a lousy negotiator, because I try to figure out what a fair compromise is, and that's my first offer. I have made that mistake several times in my life.

Look at Bush's record of legislative success. He puts in every bad idea on the Republican wish list, and he ends up getting almost everything he asks for. He doesn't say, Congress would never pass that extreme an energy bill. He just keeps asking for everything, even highly controversial things like drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge. In the end, ANWR was excluded from the bill, but Bush got all the other bad stuff he wanted.

Similar story on taxes. Bush has asked for all manner of ridiculous, unaffordable tax cuts. He kept asking, even if Congress didn't immediately pass what he asked for. At this point, the only thing he couldn't get through was the permanent repeal of the estate tax. But he aimed high and got almost everything else he wanted.

Hillary Clinton's starting point on health care will be a few nibbles here and there, trying to get health insurance for some portion of the enormous uninsured population. Even if Congress gave her everything she asked for (which wouldn't happen), we would be far from universal access to health care.

Barack Obama's plan seems much better than Hillary's, and more detailed, but from what I have read, it is also less than a universal plan, and it lacks some of the elements I like in Edwards' plan.

I am under no illusion that Congress would rubber-stamp what Edwards asks for, but I feel quite confident that he will drive a hard bargain and get us the best possible deal for health care. I feel that Clinton and Obama will not push Congress as hard on this issue. 

On energy policy, so far Dodd, Richardson and Edwards have offered the most ambitious proposals to combat global warming. No doubt these would not get through Congress intact, but it is very important to aim high (e.g. policies that would achieve an 80 percent reduction in carbon emissions by 2050).

So bring on the details, I say, and tell us what your legislative priorities would be. 

Yesterday Barack Obama released his health care plan. I didn't have time to blog about it, let alone read it, so I can't give you my impressions yet. I am glad he released a plan, because a robust debate over who has the best plan to improve our health care system can only be good for the country and for the Democratic Party.

The Des Moines Register's story on the plan is here.

The Financial Times covers the plan here.

Obama supporter “Democratic Luntz” makes the case on Daily Kos for why this is a great plan.

Ezra Klein, one of the blogosphere's leading wonks on health care policy, doesn't seem too impressed. At his blog and at the American Prospect, he notes that the plan would not achieve universal health care coverage and doesn't provide a public health insurance option that would be available to all Americans.  

Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) was quoted by the Financial Times as saying,

“The Obama plan relies heavily on the current employer-based system, which leaves workers at risk of losing their healthcare if they lose or change their jobs,” said Ron Wyden, a Democratic senator for Oregon. “It also puts US companies and workers at a disadvantage in the long term when they have to compete in a global economy against overseas companies whose workers get their healthcare paid by their government.”

California nurses' advocate Shum Preston slammed Obama's plan in a diary posted at MyDD:

This is the worst of all worlds.  On the one hand, we will continue to see patients abused by insurance industry execs–the very same abuse SiCKO documents.  On the other hand, insurance companies continue to run their plans–meaning we will continue to see astronomical medical inflation, bankruptcy, heartache, and repeated denials of care–BUT the federal government will find themselves on the hook for the sickest and most expensive patients.

I know some Obama fans read this blog. What do you think of the plan? Were you disappointed that it is not universal, or do you think Obama's critics are being too harsh?

I believe that the next president is going to have to make health care a priority, and should start with a universal plan. Perhaps it couldn't all get through Congress in one go, and you'd have to do some reforms piecemeal.

But I worry about Obama's decision to propose a plan that's less than universal. Your starting point for negotiations shouldn't be the reasonable compromise you think Congress might pass. 

This taps into my biggest concern about Obama, my sense that in his devotion to “consensus,” he would give half the game away before negotiations with Congress even begin. The president needs to aim high.

Yesterday I put up a diary on MyDD and Daily Kos called Hey, bloggers! Get active on newspaper sites, about the need to participate in online forums created by traditional media.

We cannot cede this ground to the Republicans, because many active voters will never venture into the political blogosphere. They may log on to their local newspaper's website to read up on the news, however.

I urge all active Democrats to register and comment occasionally on at least one or two local media websites.

After the jump I am posting web links for the major newspapers in Iowa. Local tv should not be ignored either. 

Remember to be respectful; some rants that might amuse regular blog readers would just be offensive to others. 

It's been years since I watched Meet the Press. Partly this is because we have a no-tv rule in our house when children are awake, but it even predates that rule, because I cannot stand Tim Russert. His whole M.O. is so dishonest. One “gotcha” question after another when he's interviewing a Democrat, while Republicans lie with impunity, knowing that he will never ask a decent follow-up.

The least surprising tidbit to emerge from the Scooter Libby trial was that the VP's office would send Cheney to Meet the Press whenever they had a particularly good talking point they needed to get out in the public discourse. Russert is the last journalist in Washington who would ever speak truth to power.

So I didn't catch Bill Richardson on Meet the Press yesterday. I heard from my brother that he had a rough ride. It was the usual Russert game of trying to catch a Democrat in contradictions, and it sounds like Richardson wasn't that well prepared for the ordeal.

I don't care enough to watch the replay on MSNBC's website, but if you care to, here is the link.

One thing caught my attention, though. My brother e-mailed me this:

It was also funny to hear Richardson say that he was a life-long Boston Red Sox fan, yet Russert then pulled out Richardson's book and read a passage in which Richardson said that his favorite team was the New York Yankees.

I haven't watched a Major League Baseball game on television in a couple of seasons. To humor my brother, my husband let our pre-schooler watch about a half-hour of the World Series last fall. 

Which is to say, I am not a big sports fan.

But even I know that you can't say the Yankees are your favorite team if you are a lifelong Red Sox fan. Maybe you grew up in New England and now live in a new city, and you're a fan of your town's team in addition to the Red Sox. I can see that. But it's unlikely that another team could ever become your favorite if you are a lifelong Red Sox fan, and especially not the Yankees.

Even if a lifelong Packers fan settles down in the Twin Cities, I'll bet he will never say that the Vikings are his favorite team.

What I really want to know is, why would Richardson write in a book that the Yankees are his favorite team if he's really a Red Sox fan? And if he's not really a Red Sox fan, why would he claim to be, knowing that a journalist could open his book and read a reference to the Yankees?

My husband's theory is that the book was ghost-written, and Richardson either didn't know or forgot that there was a reference to the Yankees in there.

Political Wire linked to this Boston Globe story on Richardson's dual loyalties, quoting him as saying, 

“I've always been a Red Sox fan. But I said if I weren't running for president, I would like to be No. 7 — Mickey Mantle — playing center field for the New York Yankees.”My favorite team has always been the Red Sox,” he said, then added, “I'm also a Yankees fan. . . . This is the thing about me. I can bring people together.”

On one level, this baseball team business is trivia. But anyone who wants to be the Democratic nominee better be able to handle a tough television interview from Russert or anyone else.

Fortunately for Richardson, I don't think many Iowans were watching yesterday, and if they were, they probably didn't care. (Dean also “bombed” in his first Meet the Press appearance, which didn't stop him from catapulting to the front-runner spot in the summer of 2003).