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). 

Tom Vilsack has long perplexed me. He's a talented politician who pulled off a couple of impressive election victories–especially 2002, when he had a moderate opponent in a terrible year for Democrats nationwide. What's more, he's an incredibly smart, hard-working guy. But I never could figure out his priorities as governor.

Why did he go to the mat for the “Values Fund,” corporate welfare masquerading as an economic development plan? Why did he not do more for the environment? And in particular, why was he always pushing biotech and “pharma-crops” that could contaminate food grown in Iowa and destroy the markets that Iowa farmers depend on? Why was he nowhere on any of the policies sustainable agriculture advocates have been calling for, which would be great for local economies and family farmers, as well as easier on the land?

I just didn't get it.

Then he started running for president. I took his candidacy at face value–like many senators and governors, he thought he could do a good job as president and figured, why not try, even if it is a long shot? I even defended him on some of the blogs when people would accuse him of being nothing more than a stalking horse for Hillary Clinton (trying to take Iowa out of play or at least weaken Edwards here).

Vilsack talked a good game when he was running for president. I liked what he said about a lot of issues, including Iraq. The joke in my circle of friends was that Vilsack was sounding a lot better as a presidential candidate than he had as governor. I settled on Edwards as a candidate, but a few progressives I know, including my husband, were considering Vilsack.

When Vilsack dropped out early, I thought he did the honorable thing by giving his staff opportunities to get good jobs with the other campaigns. And I agreed with what he said about the role of money in politics, even though I thought he came pretty late to that party. I don't recall ever hearing him talk about public financing or clean elections reforms as governor.

Cynics immediately assumed that Vilsack would endorse Clinton–a done deal. I gave him the benefit of the doubt. But boy was I disappointed. For someone who staked his campaign on getting us out of Iraq immediately, he found it amazingly easy to endorse the Democrat with the worst positioning on the Iraq issue. If Hillary Clinton has said or done anything to help us start withdrawing troops before March 2009, I don't know what that is.

And if Vilsack really cares about the influence of money in politics, why did he turn around and endorse the favorite candidate of corporate lobbyists and low-lifes such as Rupert Murdoch?

Reading reports of his campaign appearances with Clinton, I felt disappointed and just tired of his song and dance.

The Des Moines Register ran a big story talking up Vilsack's role in the Clinton campaign. But guess what? He didn't have coat tails when we repeatedly failed to retake the Iowa House and Senate during his governorship. And Clinton hasn't been gaining in the Iowa polls following Vilsack's departure from the race.

My hunch is that Iowans are going to prove one more time that endorsements don't win the caucuses.  

But here's the part of the article that bugged me the most:

Their personal connection through Christie Vilsack's late brother, Tom Bell, and Vilsack's loyalty to Clinton for campaigning with him at a key point in his 1998 long-shot bid for governor, were key to a decision aides described as automatic.

If his friendship with the Clintons and ambition for the VP slot or a cabinet post are that important, then he shouldn't have wasted other people's time and money on his presidential bid. Everyone has known for a long time that Hillary was running for president. Vilsack just wasn't serious about taking her on, and it makes all of his presidential campaign rhetoric–especially on Iraq–look empty.

Reminds me of why I voted for Mark McCormick in the 1998 gubernatorial primary. 

Note to the campaigns: if you want to publicize any debate-watching parties you have planned, feel free to put up a diary, or e-mail me:

desmoinesdem AT yahoo.com

Closer to the time, I will post information on the debate-watching parties going on in Iowa.

Anyone out there planning to attend the Hall of Fame dinner in Cedar Rapids on June 2? I won't be able to make it, and it would be great to hear some first-hand impressions after the fact.

I forgot to post event details in advance of Hillary Clinton's visit to north-central and northwest Iowa this weekend. According to the Des Moines Register, she didn't sound like a candidate planning to skip the caucuses:

“I'm going to spend so much time in Iowa, I'm going to be able to caucus for myself,” she said.

The comment sparked chuckles from audiences in Mason City, Charles City and Algona. But it was as close as she came to acknowledging the dust-up last week over campaign strategy.

Clinton is in a bind. She is unlikely to win Iowa and may come in third or worse, if Richardson were to make a move and Obama continues to gain strength.

But announcing that she is going to skip Iowa makes her look weak and reinforces the idea that she would not run well in the swing states. What state carried by Bush in 2004 would she win, if she is afraid to compete among Iowa Democrats?

So the best strategy for her would be to publicly make a play for Iowa while quietly trying to reduce Iowa's influence. And the obvious way to do that was suggested by her deputy campaign manager, Mike Henry, in the memo that advocated skipping Iowa. As summarized by TPM Cafe's Sunday election roundup, the salient fact is that

before Iowa and New Hampshire even vote, potentially millions of absentee ballots will already have been sent out in the larger states voting on February 5. “Iowans will not be the first to vote … We must fund an expensive paid communications and a vote by mail/early vote program in these mega-states,” Henry wrote.

This is in my mind the biggest current problem for Edwards and Obama as they try to derail the Hillary inevitability train. They have to hope that she drops in the national polls well before the end of the year. Otherwise she could rack up a big lead in early voting in places like Florida, Calilfornia, and New York, helping her compensate for potentially poor performances in Iowa and New Hampshire. 

John and Elizabeth Edwards will be in eastern Iowa this weekend. Here's the scoop, along with a web link and a phone number for those who want to RSVP for the events.

If you catch one of these, please consider putting up a diary to let us know what you thought.

UPDATE: John Deeth liveblogged Edwards' appearance in Washington county today–read all about it here.

UPDATE 2: Nate Willems describes Edwards' event in Buchanan county here. 

UPDATE 3: Noneed4thneed caught Edwards in Marengo; click here for the write-up.

And Essential Estrogen posted this account of Edwards' stop in Vinton.  

All the details are below. To learn more or to let us know if you plan to attend, click here:  www.johnedwards.com/iowa/events

FRIDAY, MAY 25TH, 2007

 8:15 AM
 John Edwards to hold a community meeting
 Comfort Inn
 6169 Reve Court
Fort Madison, Iowa

 10:30 AM
 John Edwards to hold a community meeting
 Hotel Manning
100 Van Buren Street
 Keosauqua, Iowa

 12:15 PM
 John and Elizabeth Edwards to hold a community meeting
 Fairfield Public Library
104 W Adams Ave
 Fairfield, Iowa

 2:00 PM
 John and Elizabeth Edwards to hold a community meeting
 Midwest Old Threshers Museum
 405 E Threshers Road
Mount Pleasant, Iowa

 5:45 PM
 John and Elizabeth Edwards to hold a community meeting
 Washington County Fair Building
2223 250th Street
 Washington, Iowa

SATURDAY, MAY 26TH, 2007

 9:15 AM
 John and Elizabeth Edwards to hold a community meeting
 Marengo Public Library
1020 Marengo Avenue
 Marengo, Iowa

 11:45 AM
 John and Elizabeth Edwards to hold a community meeting
 Vinton Public Library
510 2nd Avenue
 Vinton, Iowa

 1:45 PM
 John and Elizabeth Edwards to hold a community meeting
 Independence Middle School
1301 1st St West
 Independence, Iowa

 5:15 PM
 John and Elizabeth Edwards to hold a community meeting
 Wartburg College Saemann Student Center
 100 Wartburg Blvd
Waverly, Iowa

SUNDAY, MAY 27TH, 2007

 11:00 AM
 John and Elizabeth Edwards to hold a community meeting
New Hampton Community Center
112 E Spring Street
 New Hampton, Iowa

 1:00 PM
 John and Elizabeth Edwards to hold a community meeting
 Hotel Winneshiek – Steyer Opera House
104 Water Street
 Decorah, Iowa

 3:30 PM
 John and Elizabeth Edwards to hold a community meeting
 The Dancing Lion
110 S. Frederick Avenue
 Oelwein, Iowa

 5:15 PM
 John and Elizabeth Edwards to hold a community meeting
 Delaware County Fairgrounds Community Center
200 E. Acers Street
 Manchester, Iowa

 These events are free and open to the public. Please let us know if you plan to attend by clicking here:

www.johnedwards.com/iowa/events

 For more information visit www.johnedwards.com/iowa/events or email iowa@johnedwards.com or call 515-288-0766.

Joe Biden's got a lot of Iowa events scheduled during the coming week. He is covering a lot of ground, so there may well be an event near you. If you catch one, put up a diary and let us all know what you thought.

They are definitely trying to get a big crowd for his Tuesday lunch address in Des Moines. I got an invitation in the mail and a personal phone call. Unfortunately, with my two young kids it doesn't work out for me to head downtown for an hour on Tuesday at lunchtime. 

I got these events from the public calendar on Biden's campaign website:

Saturday May 26, 2007
 
1:00 PM                     SEN. BIDEN TO HOLD IRAQ TOWN HALL WITH COUNCIL BLUFFS DEMOCRATS
 
                                    National Guard Armory
                                    2415 East Kanesville Boulevard
                                    Council Bluffs, IA
 
4:00 PM                     SEN. BIDEN TO MEET WITH CARROLL COUNTY DEMOCRATS
                                   
                                    Sam’s Sodas and Sandwiches
                                    127 W 5th St
                                    Carroll, IA
 
7:30 PM                     SEN. BIDEN TO MEET WITH BOONE COUNTY DEMOCRATS
 
                                    Boone County Historical Center
                                    602 Story Street
                                    Boone, IA  
 
Sunday May 27, 2007
 
12:00 PM                   SEN. BIDEN TO HOLD IRAQ TOWN HALL WITH STORY COUNTY DEMOCRATS
 
                                    Iowa State University
                                    Campanile Room
                                    Ames, IA
 
3:30 PM                     SEN. BIDEN TO DELIVER KEYNOTE ADDRESS AT JOHNSON COUNTY DEMOCRATIC PARTY
                                  EVENT
 
                                    Upper City Park, Shelter 2
                                    1 E. Park Road
                                    Iowa City, IA
 
7:00 PM                     SEN. BIDEN TO HOLD IRAQ TOWN HALL WITH CLINTON COUNTY DEMOCRATS
 
                                    Lion Train Depot
                                    #56 25th Avenue North
                                    Clinton, IA
 
Monday May 28, 2007

8:45 AM                     SEN. BIDEN TO ATTEND A MEMORIAL DAY BREAKFAST WITH WAR VETERANS AND THEIR
                                  FAMILIES AT AMVETS POST 49
 
                                    Amvets Post 49 Hall
                                    20 Irving Street
                                    Cedar Falls, IA

10:30AM                    SEN. BIDEN TO ATTEND WATERLOO MEMORIAL DAY PARADE AND CEREMONY
 
                                    *Parade Start Location:
                                    Commercial Street (Between West Fifth And Sixth Streets)
                                    Waterloo, IA
 
                                    *Memorial Ceremony:
                                    Veterans Memorial Hall
                                    West Fifth Street
                                    Waterloo, IA
 
1:00PM                      FORMER STATE REP. BOB OSTERHAUS AND ANN OSTERHAUS TO HOST SEN. BIDEN AT
                                  A HOUSE PARTY AT THEIR HOME
                                   
                                    Home of Former Rep. and Mrs. Bob Osterhaus
                                    216 Austin Ave.
                                    Maquoketa, IA
 
4:00PM                      MS. ANN HEINZ TO HOST SEN. BIDEN AT A HOUSE PARTY AT HER HOME

                                    Home of Ms. Ann Heinz
                                    3150 Asbury Road
                                    Dubuque, IA
 
7:00 PM                     REP. MARK DAVITT AND AMY DUNCAN TO HOST SEN. BIDEN AT A HOUSE PARTY AT THEIR
                                  HOME
 
                                    Home of Rep. Mark Davitt
                                    611 West Ashland
                                    Indianola, IA
 
Tuesday May 29, 2007
 
11:30 AM                   SEN. BIDEN TO DELIVER KEYNOTE ADDRESS AT NATIONAL SECURITY NETWORK LUNCHEON
 
                                    The Temple for Performing Arts
                                    912 Walnut Street
                                    Des Moines, IA
 
5:30 PM                     SEN. JACK KIBBIE AND KAY KIBBIE TO HOST SEN. BIDEN AT A HOUSE PARTY AT THEIR HOME
 
                                    Home of Sen. and Mrs. Jack Kibbie
                                    112 Oakwood Place
                                    Emmetsburg, IA
 
Wednesday May 30, 2007
 
12:00 PM                   SEN. BIDEN TO ATTEND A LUNCHEON WITH WEBSTER COUNTY DEMOCRATS
 
                                    Marvin Gardens
                                    809 Central Ave.
                                    Fort Dodge, IA
 
6:00 PM                     SEN. BIDEN TO DELIVER KEYNOTE ADDRESS AT BLACK HAWK COUNTY DEMOCRATIC 
                                  PARTY EVENT
 
                                    Olsen’s Boat House
                                    Center Street (north of the river)
                                    Cedar Falls, IA

Thursday May 31, 2007
 
8:00 AM                     SEN. BIDEN TO ATTEND A BREAKFAST WITH BENTON COUNTY DEMOCRATS
 
                                    Kirkwood Community College
                                    111 W. 3rd Street
                                    Vinton, IA
 
Saturday June 2, 2007

5:30 PM                     SEN. BIDEN TO ADDRESS THE 8th ANNUAL IOWA DEMOCRATIC PARTY HALL OF FAME
                                  DINNER
 
                                    Crowne Plaza Five Seasons Hotel
                                    350 1st Avenue
                                    Cedar Rapids, IA

So Leonard Boswell voted for the Iraq War supplemental funding bill today, just like we all knew he would. Sad as that is, it's not why I felt compelled to write this post. Pretty much every vote Boswell has ever cast related to Iraq has been the wrong vote, in my opinion.

What prompted this post was a press release from the Center for Food Safety, which came to my attention this evening. Leonard Boswell apparently inserted language into the 2007 Farm Bill that would preempt any state prohibitions against any foods or agricultural goods that have been approved by USDA. That would include genetically modified foods. The press release does not name Boswell as the author of the language in question, but advocates have learned that he was behind the move.

How disappointing that as the chairman of the House Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry (a subcommittee of the House Ag Committee), Boswell is using his influence to weaken consumer protection. Does he think the Farm Bureau will reward him for this? They're always going to endorse his opponent, no matter how much he delivers for big agribusiness in the Farm Bill.

As a resident of Iowa's 3rd district, I have long felt that we could do a lot better than Leonard Boswell. He is often not with us on environmental policy, energy policy, tax policy, or foreign policy. Even so, this move disappoints me.

If you live in the 3rd district, please contact Congressman Boswell and tell him that federal law should not prevent states from prohibiting certain types of food or agricultural goods.

You can send an e-mail directly to his office by clicking here.

Here is mail, phone and fax contact information:

DC Address:
The Honorable Leonard L. Boswell
United States House of Representatives
1427 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-1503
DC Phone: 202-225-3806
DC Fax: 202-225-5608
Email Address: http://boswell.house…
WWW Homepage: http://boswell.house…

District Office:
300 East Locust, Suite 320
Des Moines, IA 50309
Voice: 888-432-1984
FAX: 515-282-1785

The full text of the press release follows:

  *CENTER FOR FOOD SAFETY OPPOSES PROPOSAL IN FARM BILL TO BAR STATE
  PROHIBITIONS ON GENE-ALTERED FOODS*

    /House Subcommittee Today Approves Language Slipped into/
    /Farm Bill that Prevents States from Protecting their Citizens/

*Center for Food Safety Recognizes that Proposal Ties States’ Hands,
Weakening*

*Food Safety Protections at a Time When they Need to be Strengthened*

*Washington** May 24, 2007* – Earlier today, the House Subcommittee
on Livestock, Dairy and Poultry approved new language slipped into the 2007 Farm Bill that pre-empts any state prohibitions against any foods or agricultural goods that have been deregulated by the USDA. The passage appears to be aimed at several recently enacted state laws that restrict the planting of genetically engineered (GE) crops, but could also prohibit states from taking action when food contamination cases occur.

“Given the recent spate of food scares, it’s shocking to see this attempt to derail safeguards for our food and farms,” said Joseph Mendelson, Legal Director of the Center for Food Safety. “We need a Farm Bill that will promote stronger food safety standards, not one that attacks these vital state-level protections.”

The passage approved by the House Subcommittee today states that “no State or locality shall make any law prohibiting the use in commerce of an article that the Secretary of Agriculture has inspected and passed; or determined to be of non-regulated status.”

State legislatures, local governments, and citizens of many states and localities have adopted prohibitions on the planting of certain genetically altered products. Some of the state-level laws that may be pre-empted or compromised if the proposed Farm Bill language were adopted include:

· *Legislation in California and Arkansas that gives these states the power to prohibit the introduction of GE rice.* The major rice growing states are particularly concerned after last fall’s revelations that several unapproved varieties of GE rice had contaminated natural rice, resulting in massive losses for US farmers when export customers in Asian and Europe closed their markets to US rice.

· *Legislation adopted this year in the state of Washington, which prohibits planting of GE canola in areas near the State’s large non-GE seed production*. Brassica (cabbage, broccoli, and other such crops) seed producers pushed for this legislation, since GE canola can cross-pollinate with and contaminate natural cabbage seed. The Skagit Valley area in Washington produces $20 million in vegetable seed annually and is home to half of the world’s cabbage seed production;

· *County bans on planting of GE crops in four California counties.* To protect their organic and natural food producers, four California counties have adopted bans or moratoriums on planting of GE crops;

An overview of these and other state- level regulations of GE crops and foods is available at:
http://www.centerfor… .

In addition, the vague language of the proposal raises concerns that states would be barred from taking action when food safety threats arise. For example, states could be barred from prohibiting the sale of e. coli-tainted ground beef if the meat has passed USDA inspection, as was the case in last week’s massive 15-state beef recall.

The biotechnology industry has sponsored language akin to the text approved this morning in the House subcommittee in dozens of state-level attempts to pre-empt state regulations on GE crops. They also joined the food and agribusiness industries last year in pushing for a federal “Food Uniformity” law, which would have gutted numerous state-level food safety laws.

* *

*/The Center for Food Safety/*/ is national, non-profit, membership
organization founded in 1997 that works to protect human health and the
environment by curbing the use of harmful food production technologies
and by promoting organic and other forms of sustainable agriculture. On
the web at: http://www.centerfor…

Senate 2008 Guru has posted the May Senate approval numbers from Survey USA. Click through if you want to see how the senators up for reelection in 2008 are doing. I want to note that Tom Harkin's approve/disapprove numbers were 56/36, holding steady since last month and up a bit from his numbers last November (53/40).

Republicans always trick themselves into thinking Harkin is vulnerable, and maybe now that he has introduced the Guantanamo Closure Act of 2007 they will decide it's time to take another shot at the old liberal.

But remember, Harkin is going to have a major hand in crafting the new farm bill between now and the election. Plus, he's made himself a lot of friends around the state over the last three decades.

Somehow, I don't think he will be quaking at the thought of a challenge from the Des Moines businessman who ran the Vander Plaats gubernatorial campaign. But I'll let Polk County Republican Party Chairman Ted Sporer make the case for Troy Cook:

Troy certainly showed his ability to maximize the benefit of minimal resources in the 2002 gubernatorial primary. Troy would be a very articulate and aggressive young candidate if he were to run.

As the incoming President of the Iowa Association of Health Underwriters Troy’s background in healthcare financing would give him a unique understanding of the better solutions for America’s health care financing problems.

Troy’s an old football coach and I know he’d be a bulldog.

Please, Republicans, put lots of resources into defeating Tom Harkin in 2008!

Ed. Note: Cross-posted Political Forecast.

In a day of big news on the 2008 trail (new Dodd ad, memo about Clinton campaign pondering skipping Iowa, Edwards giving a big foreign policy speech, etc), here is something worth recognizing as a standout point: Sen. Christopher Dodd is going to vote against the new Iraq supplemental funding bill, the one without a timeline for withdrawal. The video of his reasoning is below:

And here is the full release from the campaign is below:

“This war has gone on longer than World War II and there is no end in sight. Yet we are less secure and more isolated than before. We have lost 3,400 patriotic Americans and shattered our standing in the world. We are spending $2 billion a week – $8 billion a month – and are now caught in the middle of a civil war. Still, this President wants more of the same and this bill would give him his wish.

I cannot and will not simply give this President another blank check.

Half-measures and equivocations are not going to change our course in Iraq. If we are serious about ending the war, Congress must stand up to this President’s failed policy now – with clarity and conviction.

As the debate on the war continues, I will continue to fight for a firm deadline that is tied to funding which will allow for a responsible redeployment of U.S. combat troops in Iraq – because that’s the only way to responsibly bring this war to a conclusion.

I hope my colleagues would do the same.”

This comes after a new ad was released this morning by his campaign, where he called out Senators Clinton and Obama — the presumed front-runners — for finally coming to his position and voting in favor of the Feingold-Reid-Dodd Amendment in the Senate. It was a big time move, and I think a good way to gain traction here in Iowa.

Both Clinton and Obama are strong in Iowa, behind the powerhouse that is John Edwards. Right behind those three is Bill Richardson, who has gained traction with his message calling on Congress to de-authorize the war in Iraq and his new ads. In the latest Iowa Poll, Dodd wasn’t gaining traction. With the ads and the strong movement against the war in Iraq and the calls for troop withdrawals by March of 2008, Dodd is putting himself firmly in the anti-Iraq war camp with Richardson and Edwards. While Obama has consistently been against the war, he can’t put himself in this camp because he’s not coming out strong for withdrawal, deauthorization, or any other kind of leadership position on the issue. Clinton is Clinton on Iraq (I’m glad she’s calling on the Pentagon to do more to prepare for withdrawal scenarios, but toeing the line just doesn’t mesh with me).

Sen. Dodd is a strong voice to end this war, particularly in the Senate. Sens. Clinton and Obama have started following his lead, but beyond Sen. Russ Feingold, he’s the only other one pushing strongly in the Senate for an end to this debacle. And he deserves credit for bring that debate into the Senate, as well as bringing it to the race by forcing Clinton and Obama to clearly take a stand. And now, as the closing part of the release shows, he’s making an issue of how Clinton and Obama are going to vote on the supplemental. And they should vote against it. Make this a Republican bill — make them own it. They’re the ones continuing this mess.

I’m staying neutral for a while, but if a candidate wants to keep convincing me they’re worthy of being the next President, then they need to start leading the charge to put an end to the Iraq war. It is that simple.

Conventional wisdom says that women voters are naturally drawn to Hillary Clinton, but Barack Obama and John Edwards are in no way ceding this ground to Hillary.

Both campaigns have established “Women for Obama” and “Women for Edwards” groups, and both Michelle Obama and Elizabeth Edwards are helping their husbands target women voters. On May 15 John Edwards held an Iowa women's town hall in Des Moines, the same day that the campaign released a list of 1,500 Iowa women who have pledged to caucus for Edwards.

Tuesday's Des Moines Register included a story about Michelle Obama's event the previous day at a coffee shop in the suburb of Waukee.

This passage caught my eye:

Nancy Bobo, a Des Moines Human Rights Commission member, attended the Waukee event. She said Barack Obama has her caucus vote.

“I don't think there's any other candidate that on Inauguration Day can get up and speak to the world and immediately the world knows it's a new day in America,” Bobo said. “We're electing a president, not just for Americans, but for the world. … We need someone that will really bring people together.”

I remember Nancy Bobo from the last caucus campaign. She was one of the key organizers of Women for Kerry, which held regular breakfasts for professional women and other events. After the 2004 campaign, Bobo and other organizers continued to hold these events, renaming the group Women for a Stronger America.

Among Iowa Democrats, Nancy Bobo is not as well-known as Clinton supporter Bonnie Campbell or Edwards supporter Roxanne Conlin, but this is still a big catch for the Obama campaign, in my view. A lot of professional women in Des Moines and the suburbs know and respect Nancy Bobo. Her backing may well persuade others to give Obama their serious consideration, or to give him another look if they had been leaning toward a different candidate.

Ever since Tom Vilsack dropped out of the presidential race, I have thought there was a big opening in Iowa for Bill Richardson, the only governor and the only candidate with extensive legislative, executive and diplomatic experience. What I didn't know was whether he would make a serious play for this state.

The last few weeks have settled that question. First Richardson went up on the air with some well-received tv spots. Then he started visiting the state more frequently, holding small events that gave voters an opportunity to see him up close. He's been moving up in the Iowa polls, reaching 10 percent in the latest Iowa poll commissioned by the Des Moines Register.

Over at Iowa Independent, Douglas Burns covered Richardson's recent trip to southwest Iowa. Part of his piece reminded me of something I find intriguing about Richardson's strategy:

In Red Oak and Denison, Richardson highlighted his international experience.

Diplomacy shouldn’t be viewed as a “reward” for good behavior, he said.
“Even bad guys need something,” Richardson said. “You can hold a carrot in one hand and a big stick in the other.”

Richardson said he has the resume and track record to stare down America’s enemies, to reach accords that prevent the nation from sending troops to combat except as a last resort.

“I stood toe-to-toe with the world’s bad guys, Saddam Hussein, North Korea, the Sudan, Fidel Castro, (Omar) al-Bashir (Sudan),” Richardson said in Denison. “President Clinton used to say, ‘We have problems in our foreign policy. There are bad dictators. Bad people like Richardson so we’ll send him there.’”

Playing up his diplomatic background is not surprising, but I find it interesting that Richardson is not afraid to highlight the fact that he has negotiated with dictators.

His first tv ad, the biographical one, included a still photo of himself with Saddam Hussein. His ad about Iraq, in which he stands in front of a wall, alludes to the tough diplomatic work that will begin once we get our troops out of Iraq. In his “job interview” ad, the interviewer mentions Richardson's experience negotiating with dictators.

The Republican Party has tried for decades to make Democrats look weak on national defense, to the point that some Democrats feel continually compelled to prove they are tough enough to support war, even pre-emptive war.

Conventional wisdom has called for Democrats to show that they would not hesitate to use the armed forces to defend America. John Kerry was mocked for stating the simple fact that fighting the “war on terror” requires law enforcement and not just military force.

Yet here is Bill Richardson, not afraid to say that it's often in our national interest to negotiate with dictators, not afraid to mention that he stood “toe to toe” with Saddam Hussein.

I like it. Time to treat the voters like grown-ups who can understand that our foreign policy needs to be about more than dropping bombs and talking about an “axis of evil.”

Richardson is too conservative for me when it comes to domestic policies, and I don't see enough substance behind some of his campaign promises (e.g. providing universal health care).

But I am impressed that he is making a case for diplomacy as a foreign policy tool. Too many Democrats (Joe Lieberman is the most egregious example) play into right-wing frames that imply negotiating makes us weak.

Richardson's next trip to Iowa will be in early June, when he will speak at the Democratic Party's June 2 Hall of Fame Dinner in Cedar Rapids. I usually try to make it to that event, but this year I can't. If you are able to attend, please put up a diary afterwards with your impressions of the candidates and the feeling in the crowd. 

It's no secret to anyone who has read my diaries on how the Iowa caucuses work that I am no fan of the caucus system. Give me a primary any day.

The Iowa Republican Party's caucuses are slightly less undemocratic, in that they do not have a 15 percent threshold in each precinct. Instead, every individual's vote is counted toward the candidate of his or her choice.

That's an improvement, although it doesn't erase the other problems of the caucus system: no secret ballot, no absentee voting, shift workers get screwed, the huge time commitment involved drives down turnout, etc.

Does the GOP run the Iowa caucuses better than Democrats because Republicans are more interested in fair procedures and representative democracy? Before you jump to this conclusion, I recommend that you check out this article from the Des Moines Register's Monday edition, on the embarrassing spectacle that is the Iowa Republican Party's presidential straw poll in Ames.

This is where the candidates spend lots of time and energy and money preparing to bus supporters to Ames from all over the state (and in some cases from out of state). It's supposed to show who has the strongest organization, but mainly it shows who can afford to bribe more voters with free tickets, buses, food and drink, etc:

Dan Pero is one such critic. The campaign manager for Tennessee Republican Lamar Alexander's 1996 presidential campaign also said the straw poll is a costly diversion of campaign resources that had no bearing on the nomination.

“The caucuses are real. The straw poll is a beauty contest,” Pero said. “I think they are meaningless and bad for the campaign. It takes a lot of money to organize for something that has no permanence on the outcome of the election.”

John McCain called it a “meaningless exercise” in 1999 when he bypassed campaigning for the caucuses during his first campaign for president.

Former Iowa congressman Jim Nussle, a top consultant for Giuliani, described the straw poll during a television interview last month as “kind of an 'American Idol'-style circus” and “meaningless.”

It should come as no surprise to longtime observers of McCain that Mr. Straight Talk has completely changed his tune and will aggressively compete to win the straw poll, which is scheduled for August 11.

I'll be interested to see whether Giuliani blows off this contest and risks the wrath of loyal Iowa Republicans who seem to enjoy the event.

I understand why the Des Moines Register strives for ideological balance in its letters section, but one thing I can't figure out is how some letters, which deliberately miss the point of the article they are responding to, get past the editors.

A case in point is this letter, published in the Sunday Register, in which stay-at-home mom Lori Leporte of Des Moines attempted to strike a humorous tone. The letter is written as an apology to her four-year-old son:

I'm sorry that you're stuck with me and with the choice I've made to raise and educate you myself instead of letting the state of Iowa – which, according to Rekha Basu, is becoming a better parent – do it (“Iowa Becoming a Better Parent,” May 13 column).

She goes on to apologize for her plans to home-school her four-year-old, providing him with an individualized curriculum, etc.

And now, it seems that, should you choose to go to college, you will be doomed to a life of hard work and perseverance in order to pay your own way because you are cursed with living with a set of parents who love you and have taught you that you are not entitled to one dime of the taxpayers' money just because you got a bad rap in life, thereby rendering you ineligible for a free college education, courtesy of the state.

Anyone reading this letter without knowing the context would naturally think, whah? The state is providing free education to some kids but punishing those who have good parents? The Register's liberal columnist is saying that the state of Iowa is a better parent than I am?

Let's look at the Rekha Basu column that this letter is reacting to. The headline read, “Iowa Becoming a Better Parent.” But was Basu really saying that the state of Iowa is a better parent than a child's own mother and father? Not at all. She was talking about recent improvements for kids who age out of foster care:

For some Iowa kids, mother doesn't look like a woman. She looks like a logo of sun rising over a cornfield attached to the slogan “Iowa – Fields of Opportunities.” The state of Iowa itself is both mother and father to about 1,500 children in foster care.
[…]
But last week, the state of Iowa, as parent, gave its foster children a sort of Mother's Day gift. It became the first state in the nation, according to the bill's Senate floor manager, to promise to pick up the cost of college for any foster-care kid of college age. It was one of several new laws intended to strengthen the welfare of the children to whom Iowa is parent.

In the past, foster children who turned 18 or 19 were often literally turned out onto the street with no public assistance. Is this the future that Lori Leporte think these unfortunate children deserve, just because they have not been cared for by their own parents? Apparently so, since she alludes to teaching her son that “you are not entitled to one dime of the taxpayers' money just because you got a bad rap in life.” 

Here's another excerpt from Basu's column:

While the government can never take the place of real parents, another bill passed by the Legislature appropriates money for the Preparation for Adult Living Program, helping these young adults find a job or school or pay rent.

As we can see, Basu explicitly states that real parents are better for children, but also talks about one program that may mitigate some of the disadvantages kids who have aged out of foster care face. But Lori Leporte twists this and sarcastically writes to her son,

you don't really need me anyway – the state of Iowa will be there to watch you blow out the candles on your birthday cake and make all your wishes come true.

I'm a stay-at-home mom, as are many of my friends. Although my husband and I will send our children to the fine public schools in our area, I have many friends who are home-schooling or plan to home-school their kids. It's a free country.

But I can't imagine any of my friends saying that some government program to help foster kids is somehow unfair to their own kids, or devalues their own parenting.

Maybe Lori Leporte honestly didn't understand the point of Basu's column–if this is the case, I sure hope her home-schooled son turns out to be better at reading comprehension than his mother.

Or maybe she was deliberately distorting the message in order to make herself feel self-righteous and score some rhetorical points against big government.

I'm sure that the Register receives plenty of letters from conservatives who don't like Basu. Next time they decide to print one of these, the editors should choose one that bashes her with some semblance of understanding the point she was making in her column.

 And note to Lori Leporte: next time you feel like griping because some kids who have had difficult childhoods are going to get some financial assistance with college, ask yourself, “What would Jesus do?”

In one of the least surprising stories I've seen lately, the Des Moines Register reported on Saturday that retail sales increased by 500 percent between 2004 and 2006 in the parts of West Des Moines that are in Dallas County (around the Jordan Creek mall, which opened in 2004, and the several other strip malls in the area).

“We knew this was going on, but we didn't know the magnitude of losses, especially to the city of Des Moines,” said David Swenson, a research scientist and economist at ISU, who completed the study with Liesl Eathington, an ISU economist.

It was obvious from the beginning that Jordan Creek and the explosion of big box stores were going to hurt business at existing shopping malls and strip malls in the metro area.

Mall officials had said Jordan Creek would draw shoppers from at least a 100-mile radius, but the declines in nearby cities suggest that the booming retail center in West Des Moines is adding shoppers at the expense of places like Des Moines, the portion of West Des Moines that sits in Polk County, Perry, Guthrie Center, Earlham and Adel.

The shift in shopping patterns has also siphoned away local-option sales tax revenue from Polk County school districts.

Thanks to these economists for pointing out the direct connection between the explosion of new retail in Dallas County and the funding shortfalls of school districts in Polk County. The Des Moines Public Schools have been most affected, but even the West Des Moines School District has had to cut back on some school renovation plans because of funding shortfalls.

One thing I would have liked to see in this article is some detail about how much taxpayer money has gone to subsidize the sprawl in the Jordan Creek area.

Polk County residents might have some clue that the new shopping out west is hurting the older malls and businesses in the metro area, but are they aware that they have paid for much of the infrastructure supporting these new shopping centers west of Des Moines?