Jason Benell lives in Des Moines with his wife and two children. He is a combat veteran, former city council candidate, and president of Iowa Atheists and Freethinkers. He first published this essay on his Substack newsletter, The Odd Man Out.

A common refrain, particularly in centrist-to-liberal spaces, is that in order to make any kind of progress or reach consensus, we must always be conciliatory and tread lightly when discussing topics with folks who oppose the prevailing Democratic viewpoint.

The post-election analysis of 2016 was a good example of this, when “economic anxiety” became a stand-in for folks who were just uninformed on the issues. We saw it again in 2020 with folks being “skeptical of COVID” instead of simply uninformed.

Already, we are seeing it again—but notably, a lot less—in the aftermath of the 2024 election. We hear folks were “worried about the economy” despite, once again, folks just being uninformed.

Johnson County Supervisor Kurt Friese: “2018 is no time for a ‘No-true-Scotsman’ logical fallacy about who is more (or less) progressive than whom, bickering amongst ourselves while the Republican Party consolidates power under the banner of Donald Trump and the Branstad/Reynolds administration.” -promoted by desmoinesdem

As a lifelong holder of minority opinions, I am accustomed to candidates I support being defeated. I’ve never done the math but I’ll bet my record for supporting the winning candidate in a primary is just slightly north of 50 percent–far worse if you only look at the presidential races! I suppose this may be something future candidates who seek my endorsement may want to keep in mind, but anyway…

Under The Golden Dome has the story as well, but Americans United For Change has a new ad up going after some of the more conservative fiscal hawks in Congress including our very own 4th CD Rep. Steve King.

This also comes at a bad time for Congressman King as Public Policy Polling has new numbers from statewide Iowa polling – showing him having weak favorables statewide, and particularly weak favorables when compared to Christie Vilsack.

As is often the case, the “mainstream” media nowadays is pushing a “conventional wisdom” line that has only one major problem – it’s largely or completely wrong. In this case, the “wisdom” is that voting for limits on carbon pollution is bad politics.  The polling indicates it’s far more complicated than that.  

For instance, the latest CBS/NY Times poll indicates that nearly 90% of Americans believe U.S. energy policy needs either “fundamental changes’ or “to be completely rebuilt,” while 97% of Americans are “angry” or “bothered” by the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.  Those percentages hardly appear to indicate a status quo, “conventional wisdom” electorate on this issue, or an automatic political downside to making fundamental changes in U.S. energy policy.

In the U.S. House district five Democratic primary race, Matt Campbell has done well at picking up labor endorsements.  There is one thing that stands out to me about this race's endorsements.  The only endorsements by politicians have gone to Mike Denklau.  Two highly regarded former politicians, Roger Wendt and Berkley Bedell, believe Denklau to be the best candidate to represent our district.  The only politician endorsements Campbell has are the ones he wants to fool you into thinking he has.  Throughout the campaign, a large portion of photos on Campbell's website and on his literature show him with either Vice President Joe Biden or U.S. Senator Tom Harkin.  These are misleading as neither politician has endorsed him.  This type of political maneuver which can be successful, but also dishonest reminds me of the 2002 Newark, NJ Mayoral race.  Incumbent Sharpe James sent out literature with him pictured with Bill Clinton to trick people into believing he had been endorsed.  This tactic helped James defeat challenger Cory Booker.  I am not fooled by Campbell's tactics.  I will be supporting Mike Denklau, the honest candidate, on June 8th.

{First, a cheap plug for my blog Senate Guru.}

40 days from today – on May 18 – we will see two HUGE primaries for U.S. Senate.  Even though these races aren’t in Iowa, they impact Democrats across the country and, well, the entire country as a whole.

In Pennsylvania, Democratic Congressman Joe Sestak will try to upset Republican-for-decades Arlen Specter.

In Arkansas, Democratic Lieutenant Governor Bill Halter will try to upset corporate lackey Blanche Lincoln.

Polling shows that both Specter and Lincoln are at risk of – if not likely to – hand these Senate seats over to far-right-wing Republicans. (And, even if these two retain the seats, that’s not much better on many key issues.)

Congressman Sestak and Lieutenant Governor Halter winning these primaries are critical to keeping these seats in truly Democratic hands. Your support can help make that happen!  Please hop over to the Expand the Map! ActBlue page right away to make a contribution – an investment in the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party to pull out an old expression – and show your support.

Thanks SO much for any support you can provide. 40 Days.

Crossposted from Hillbilly Report.

The compromise in the House is not real Healthcare reform. Although our country desperately needs Healthcare reform just supporting any bill offered is not progress. After Corporate Democrats and Republicans have gotten a hold of the bills in the House and Senate they are so watered down that they will not be anything that will do much good.

Join the discussion for Rural Progressives on our issues, challenges, and candidates for 2010 at Hillbilly Report. City Slickers are more than welcome too!!

When one thinks about children in poverty in many regions of the country one normally thinks about children living in urban societies. While much child poverty exists in urban conditions the fact is that rural Americans face even a greater challenge uplifting their children from poverty. New statistics are very disturbing for those of us raising children in rural areas of the country.

Greetings from Kentucky to the Iowa Progressives on Bleeding Heartland. I created an account and lurk here from time to time, but try to respect the Iowa-based format. I must say I enjoy reading here and much of the writing and comments.  

I haven't posted on here in quite a long time, but some of you know me.  I work for Iowa House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy.  We wanted to let you all know that some of our candidates are getting up on network TV in the final two weeks of the campaign and wanted to let you know where you can see the ads. 

You can also learn about all of our great House candidates on the House Democratic Caucus blog.

There are two places you can view the TV spots:
First, www.youtube.com/iowahousedemocrats

Secondly, you can find us on Facebook

The Republican machine has gone “all in” on the Iowa House.  Senator Wieck (Senate Minority Leader) has all but given up on picking up seats in the Senate and with Harkin not having a credible opponent it's all about the house.

So, if you are interested in helping out a local House Democratic candidate – please contact your local Democratic central committee or the Iowa Democratic Party.  They can direct you to where you need to go.  Plus, you can contribute the House Truman Fund via ActBlue.

UPDATE from desmoinesdem, with a question: According to Marc Ambinder, the Democratic National Committee is considering spending money in some key state legislative races. Anyone know if the DNC is getting involved in any Iowa House races?

Just yesterday House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer was telling us that he’d basically lost control over House Democrats and that they were the ones forcing his hand in this ridiculous compromise over FISA that would grant big telecommunication companies immunity over their warrantless wiretapping and other exercises.  At about 11:30 this morning I get an email from the office of the majority leader telling me that between the House and Senate majority and minority leaders of their respective intelligence committees that a compromise has been reached–and according to the Wall Street Journal, that compromise essentially include immunity.

As David Kurtz points out at TPM, it is a ridiculous compromise that creates such a weak standard for “conditional immunity” that just about any telecom company could meet.

If Hoyer thinks he’s lot control now (but then regained it to tout this compromise) let’s show him what a lack of control looks like when the blogosphere puts the pressure on his office and Congressional Democrats across the country not to vote for this POS compromise.

CALL NOW!

Here’s the switchboard number for the Majority Leader’s Office: 202-225-3130

You can reach Iowa’s congressmen at these numbers:

• IA-01, Bruce Braley (D): (202) 225-2911
• IA-02, Dave Loebsack (D): (202) 225-6576
• IA-03, Leonard Boswell (D): (202) 225-3806
• IA-04, Tom Latham (R): (202) 225-5476
• IA-05, Steve King (R): (202) 225-4426

Remember to be polite and concise, expressing your opposition to the FISA Amendments Act (H.R. 6304) and asking for your representative to oppose it as well.

If you get a response one way or the other on how they’d vote, leave a note in the comments.

It is probably still an inconvenient or touchy time to be talking about this with all of the truly disastrous flooding coming to an end in Iowa and the cleanup just beginning.  But it has to be said: we weren’t truly prepared for this kind of disaster and we have to take steps to prevent it from happening in the future.

Brad Johnson, a research associate at the Center for American Progress and a blogger at their Wonk Room policy blog, brought my attention to a couple of his posts on the terrible flooding and storms in the Midwest this summer, particularly in Iowa.  And in those posts he makes a couple of fascinating points.

First, he notes Sen. Chuck Grassley’s hypocrisy in calling attention to the complacency over severe weather (speaking on the Senate floor about the deadly Parkersburg tornado) yet voted to filibuster the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act.

Second, he notes an unfortunate quote from Gov. Chet Culver about our inability to “anticipate or prepare for” these types of events.  The facts are that reports since at least 2000 have been forecasting the types of weather patterns Iowa has been experiencing over the last couple of years.  See the link above for more information at Johnson’s post.

It seems clear that leadership on both sides of the political spectrum in Iowa have failed us.  They are not considering the big picture when it comes to environmental concerns in the state of Iowa.  And statewide environmental groups aren’t putting the pressure on local and state officials to keep them accountable either.

We need better and bolder leadership on the broad issues of global climate change and environmental issues in Iowa.  Whether or not you want to attribute the cause of these terrible weather patterns to global climate change, call them a natural aberration, or simply just call them normal, our leaders should be considering some important things when moving forward with reconstruction.  Bill Becker at Climate Progress offers more details, but here is his list which he deems lessons from an angry planet:

1. We need to put unprecedented pressure on our national leaders to get serious about mitigation and adaptation.
2. It’s past time to rethink national flood control and water management strategy.
3. When we repair and rebuild disaster-damaged buildings and infrastructure, we should do so with cutting-edge mitigation and adaptation in mind.

Groups like the Iowa Global Warming Campaign, the Iowa Chapter of the Sierra Club, the Iowa Environmental Council, and any other group committed to protecting and defending Iowa’s environment should be tackling issues like this.  Granted, there are concerns about hog lots, Iowa’s waterways, and coal power plants to be concerned about as well.  Heck, even 1000 Friends of Iowa should be concerned about future development that not only is environmentally-friendly but that protects families and businesses on or near flood plains.

The state needs leadership on these pressing issues.  We call events like these “100 year floods” and “500 year floods” for a reason.  The frequency with which they occur is not what is implied, but the the likelihood that they will.  In just a 15 year period of time, we’ve experienced drastic periods of extreme drought and extreme precipitation.  You can even go back to periods in the 1980s (particularly around 1984) and see the same type of patterns, but with less severity.  We are certainly experiencing more severity with more frequency.  This is a result of global climate change.  We aren’t taking the threats seriously and we aren’t preparing ourselves for the future–either by accommodating the tragic effects that are likely or by acting to stop these events from happening in the first place.

The big debate in Iowa that is now emerging as the flood waters head downstream and leave the state is how to pay for all of the destruction and prepare for the reconstruction.  Some want to use the state’s rainy-day fund and others are looking at incurring state debt as an option.  In the end, the debate will be politically charged about fiscal issues and not the bigger picture.  Democrats and Progressives in Iowa have to think big picture or our meager political gains (and the state itself) will be washed away, no pun intended.

There seem to be two distinct ideas emerging for financing the massive reconstruction project Iowa will have to enact to deal with the tragic and disastrous floods we’ve experienced this spring (on a quick side note, I sure hope that summer fares us better).  The first is to tap into the state’s so-called “rainy day” fund (no pun was intended, I’m sure) and the other is to borrow money and essentially create debt.  Both are the logical responses to a natural disaster of this magnitude.  I think it was a Johnson County emergency management official who said this was “our own Katrina.”  Whether he meant that in terms of sheer destruction or bad planning or reactions to the event, I’m not sure.  But the statement still leaves an impact.

Once we get beyond the human and emotional costs of the flooding, we will ultimately have to deal with the political ramifications of financing the reconstruction.  Governor Culver seems to prefer using the state’s rainy day fund.  Senate Majority Leader Gronstal says he’s open to incurring debt.  So what are we to do?

At first glance, Gov. Culver’s idea would seem to the most politically feasible and publicly attractive option on the table.  The state and taxpayers won’t have to incur debt or use their taxes to pay off the bills because they’ll just use the extra money they have right now to reconstruct Iowa.  But I think there should be serious consideration of incurring debt to finance the reconstruction.

To me, the root of the problem is whether we want to rebuild or reconstruct what has been destroyed.  Those mean different things.  Rebuilding implies we’ll bring things back to the status quo, maybe with some minor improvements.  Reconstruction implies a step forward and desire to plan and implement improvements and to change the way we do things.  Iowa needs the investment in the future and needs to show that the state has the ability and capability to plan effectively, plan efficiently, and act with speed to solve problems and fix what has broken.

Incurring debt isn’t such a bad thing, as David Yepsen told us yesterday.  There are reasons to consider it.  Tapping into the rainy day fund isn’t a bad idea either.  But will either one be enough?

The special legislative session to deal with this issue is going to happen; it has to.  But the debate will be a lengthy one.  And it will result in tough decisions.  Contrary to what others argue, waiting to see what the federal government will pay for is not an option.  If this truly is “our Katrina” then we all know that federal disaster response is horrid.  The state must act soon.

Desmoinesdem has been posting some links from the EENR Blog.

 A brief history: EENR initially stood for Edwards Evening News Roundup. Edwards supporters posted nightly diaries about John's campaign and what he stood for on the Daily Kos from April 4, 2007-Feb 1, 2008. When the campaign suspended and most of the other progressive blogs focused on the horse race, some JRE supporters decided to start our own blog to discuss issues facing all of us, and not just be a support group blog for disenfranchised JRE supporters.  The EENR editorial team believes that along with the issues, they (we) should advocate for more and better downticket candidates that support a more bold, progressive agenda on Capitol Hill and in some instances, state races.  That is why EENR endorsed Ed Fallon.

Tonight EENR proudly endorses Kevin Miskell, IA-04 who is a true John Edwards Democrat.  Here's why.

Miskell is a fifth generation Iowa farmer from Story County, Iowa.   See One Carolina Girl's video of Miskell from last year:

 EENR invited Miskell to come by last week and talk about the issues the community was interested in, which included international issues besides the war in Iraq that blogs and the M$M don't pay as much attention to; some would have been curve balls for many candidates.  EENR discovered Miskell has been following human rights and other international issues as its bloggers have.   That's rare.

  More below the fold….(text courtesy of Sarah Lane and also from Kevin Miskell's diary last week)  

Disclosure: I am on the EENR editorial team.

I am a volunteer with the Fallon campaign (we need more of you guys!!!)

 I am also involved with getting more Deaf people involved in politics. I am trying to do outreach to the Deaf community in IA-03 and all over to support Ed Fallon – why?

 I made a short video to explain! Hope you all like it.

**hattip to Desmoinesdem for suggesting me to post this here**

Video is below 

Congratulations to Hillary Clinton for winning New Hampshire. But there is much more at stake to this horse race than the skim surface of the campaign mechanics the mainstream media tells.

Though Hillary Clinton won New Hampshire, her back door dealings have already seem to have secured her a position in the White House, barely trying.

Just like the general election where the electoral college is the only vote that matters, the primaries have a similar system that parallels the electoral college in process. It’s call the delegates and superdelegates.

Here’s an explanation of what they are and how they’re selected. They aren’t voted for at all.

And here is the list of delegates who have already committed to a candidate even BEFORE the primaries.

Clinton’s campaign co-chair is Terri McAuliffe, who works and is very influential in the DNC. He was able to lock all of the DNC for Hillary anyways. What is your opinion on it?

Well, the results coming in have been surprising so far, at least on the Democratic side of things.  Clinton up with a quarter of the vote in.  Was there anyone predicting that?

You can track live results here from CNN.com.  Jerome Armstrong’s got an interesting discussion going here saying that with Clinton making the contest this close in NH that we’ve still got a tough race going on to February 5th…and even beyond.

So, what’re your thoughts?  How fluid are things?  What’s next?

Winners

• John Edwards: Stayed strong and on message.  Sided with Obama as a candidate for change, and put Clinton on the spot as the status quo candidate.  He came off as articulate, clear, and as the viable alternative to a non-confrontational unity politician like Barack Obama.
• Bill Richardson: Didn’t do anything good, didn’t do anything bad.  His one big flop was calling Russia the Soviet Union.  But he’s tired, just like the rest of the candidates.  He’s not going to be the nominee, but he isn’t going to be left out of the race.  He’s clearly making the case as an experienced vice presidential candidate.
• The people of New Hampshire: Compared to the Republican debate, the second half of the Democratic debate was quite engaging on the issues, on the race, and on substance.  Clearly, there is a push for new policies and ideas in the Democratic party.  We want real leaders who will talk clearly and our Democratic candidates are willing to do that.  While looking exhausted when not answering, they were engaged when the camera was on them.  New Hampshire has a tough choice ahead of them.
• Barack Obama: He didn’t shine like he could’ve as the front-runner, but Gibson made sure he got the first and last word.  He seemed more tired and lackluster than he is on the stump, but that seems to have been the case for most of the debates he has been in.

Losers

• Hillary Clinton: Her angry moment sure didn’t help her (though it is quite clear she has the energy and is quite committed to the race) and Edwards’ double-team with Obama against definitely portrayed her as the third wheel of a two-person race.  She’s falling fast in New Hampshire and needs to dump Mark Penn.
• The Republicans: After watching most of their debate, I can’t see how American or folks in New Hampshire would want their old grumpy grandpa or their sleazy corporate boss as president.  Huckabee’s the only one who looked presidential but his policy offerings have largely been substance-less.  Bill Clinton had the advantage of being an intellectual and Rhodes Scholar to overcome the fact that he was really only the governor of Arkansas.  Huckabee doesn’t have that advantage.
• Charlie Gibson (And his NH counterpart): Maybe it was just me, but his cynicism towards the Democrats in general seemed to make him look just as grumpy and frumpy as most of the Republicans in the hour and a half before the Democrats.  I’m glad they challenged the Democrats but it seemed a bit harsh and a bit more than needed.

Feel free to call me out on these and offer your own thoughts and reactions.  We all know I can be wrong from time to time.  And if you’re curious, Time’s Mark Halperin offers his grades of the candidates here.

Update: The liveblog and commentary is in the comments section.  Go there, participate.

I’ll be offering some of my commentary on tonight’s debate here at BH either here on the front-page or in the comments.  Feel free to drop in comments whenever  you please and share your thoughts.

Right now the Democrats and Republicans are on stage for a huge photo op.  Interesting image…

Cross-posted at Political Forecast.

Maybe I’ve missed something in my absences from blogging over the past few months, but has the Register ever really done a serious news or feature piece on Iowa’s bloggers and citizen journalists?  I mean, I know we threaten their credibility and their readership by getting scoops, insight, and news out faster sometimes–not to mention that our commentary is sometimes more consistent and better written than their columnists’–but it almost seems like there is an intent to ignore the contributions that bloggers in Iowa have had both before the caucuses and in previous elections or issues.  Today, in their features section, they profile one citizen journalist who has been vlogging for PurpleStates.tv (she had to audition to get the gig) and one guy who has been doing it for MTV.  Don’t get me wrong, their efforts are valuable…but what about the folks who do this on their own time and don’t necessarily live off of it?

The folks at Iowa Independent have been doing regular news and political reporting since May, and other bloggers on both sides of the aisle have been part of the debate and policy discussion in Iowa politics for a few years now.  Other papers across the state, as well as national papers and news magazines, have highlighted our growth and commented on our contributions.

Simply put, why can’t Iowa’s paper of record recognize or examine the Iowa online community for what it is and report back to the people of Iowa on it?  I don’t want the media attention, the scrutiny, the interviews, the publicity; I just think that some of us deserve the recognition for the contributions we make.  Two of my former colleagues at Iowa Independent have already talked a bit about this subject (see Chase Martyn’s initial post here and read Ben Weyl’s abbreviated response here) and I think it is one worth further discussion as we continue to build Iowa’s blogosphere.

Chris Dodd and Joe Biden have both decided to leave the presidential race and will be going back to the Senate.  I wish them the best of luck.  In the extended entry, you can read Dodd’s remarks to supporters and you can read the release from Biden’s campaign.

On behalf of Iowa Democrats and the Bleeding Heartland community, let me say thank you to both Senators for their remarkable fight and effort they put into the caucuses.  Without Biden, we wouldn’t be able to have the serious debate about the future of Iraq like we’ve been able to have.  Without Dodd, things like FISA and restoring the Constitution would have been tossed aside.  These men have extraordinary experience and are good leaders for the Democratic party.

We Iowans are interesting people.  Of all the Senators and former Senators in the race, we picked the one with the least experience in that institution.  Maybe it is because of his message of hope, of unity, of change.  But we also looked past a combined 50+ years of experience in the Senate.  Is that a bad thing?  I don’t know.  I hope not.

However, these two men can now head back to the Senate and keep working hard for our majorities in Congress.  And pressing this reckless President for change.  Dodd can keep fighting and filibustering.  And who knows, maybe we’ll see one of these men later on as a vice president.

Or maybe as the new Senate Democratic leader.

One more time, thank you!

On Bill Richardson's recent push to restore the war in Iraq to the most prominent issue among the Democrats running for President, Chris Bowers writes:

While I know that everyone in American politics is supposed to have some ulterior motive behind everything they do in public, everything in my experience has indicated to me that Richardson's position on Iraq is genuine. Richardson isn't alone, either. The latest CNN poll on Iraq showed public sentiment for total withdrawal sharply rising to 39%, a clear plurality nationwide. Further, residual forces wouldn't even be an issue in the campaign were it not for Richardson. No matter what happens when the voting starts, and no matter what you may think of Richardson otherwise, that is an important contribution to the campaign. And yes, it is one reason not to be cynical about American politics.

Through his campaign stops, press releases, TV ads and postings on blogs, Richardson has been relentless in raising the issue of Iraq and forcing the media and other candidates to not ignore it.

You have served magnificently. Now you are coming home.

Isn't that what we want to hear our next President say?  That's what Bill Richardson said yesterday in Iowa.

Have Obama, Clinton or Edwards ever said this?  They refuse to pledge to bring home all U.S. troops, even by 2013.  2013 is too late.  Why settle for a President that can't figure out today that the war is a disaster and unequivocally calls for the withdrawal of our troops?

Richardson criticized other candidates and the news media for shifting focus away from the war:

Perhaps they think that because fewer of our troops have died lately that Americans don't care anymore. Well, we do and I dare the media to tell the families of the 37 troops who were killed last month that this issue doesn't deserve front-page coverage.

I thought with this year winding down, I'd make some predictions for the year ahead before the caucus craziness got any more out-of-hand. These are just my gut feeling on things, so don't take it too seriously.

1. The Iowa Caucus will show less than 5% difference between the top three Democrat candidates.   

    Everything I know tells me that this is going to be an incredibly close race. For one, I think John Edwards is being under-represented in the polls, due to his strength in the rural counties. Therefore, the caucus can go to any of the top three at this point. I predict the top three candidates will garner between 75-80% of the total, with no more than 5% difference between first and third. 

2. Mike Huckabee will decisively win the Iowa Caucus   

    Everything suggests that nothing can stop the Huck truck at this point. All these past, uh, we'll call them “opinions”, haven't stuck to him in a way that will turn off significant numbers of Iowa caucusgoers. He'll win, and win big.

3. Ron Paul will run as a third-party candidate.

    Ron Paul will have a strong showing in Iowa, New Hampshire, and nationwide. Not strong enough to win any individual state, let alone the nomination, but it will show that there is a big support base for him. I can't say whether he'll sign on with an established third party or start his own, but he will definitely continue the race.

4. Democrats will have solid gains in the House and Senate.

    This one's a gimme. I'm going to say we pick up 4 in the Senate and 6 in the House. Not an Earth-shaking realignment, but solid gains nonetheless.

5. Mike Bloomberg will not run for President.

    Through some backroom dealings, Mike Bloomberg will find himself dissuaded of any notion to run for President in 2008. As a result of this, I wouldn't be surprised to see him pop up in some shape or form down the line in the form of a cabinet nomination or ambassadorship, no matter which party wins.

I’m sitting in front of my TV trying to examine what the cable networks are saying about the debate.  The first network showing coverage was Fox News and their pundits were generally annoying and conservative; essentially, they weren’t worth their time.  But when they got to their focus group/panel of undecided caucus-goers done by Frank Luntz, they said that John Edwards won the debate.

I’m going to argue that John Edwards did indeed win the debate.  He articulated a coherent message that blamed corruption, greed, and entrenched interests for the problems America faces.  He also clearly told viewers that the only way to enact the policies and proposals that the candidates have promised is to elect a president that will unite America to stand up and fight back against these people.  His criticisms were constant, his answers honest, and his leadership potential was clear.  He told us how he is fighting for the middle class, and how he’s the candidate to truly enact change.

I’m always impressed with Obama’s rhetoric on the stump and during rallies, but I can’t seem to be impressed with his debating skills.  Maybe I’m just missing something.  And Hillary Clinton seemed like she was just there to give canned responses.  But I do have to admit they were honest and presidential sounding.  Joe Biden came to the debate with heart and passion, and even managed to keep his answers succinct.  Chris Dodd was presidential and brought the experience necessary to lead.  I was surprised how the speaking time was pretty equally divided, but amazed that Bill Richardson got the most time.  His answers and policies were good, but he seemed like he just had a list of issues and was rattling them off.

All in all, however, I’d be proud to have any of these candidates to be my presidential nominee.

In my mind, the debate was timid enough to declare any candidate a winner for the right reasons.  We want you to tell us who your winner was and why.

In about 8 minutes, the Des Moines Register’s Democratic Debate will start.  I’ll be doing what I can to live blog it–after the debate is over, I’ll move most of it to below the feed.

And if you’re interested, the Dodd Campaign will again be doing their talk clock:

Let’s go below the fold to read the re-cap…

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

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

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

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

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

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

Any ideas?

Congressman, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Secretary of Energy and in his second term as Governor of New Mexico after a landslide re-election victory in November 2006, Bill Richardson is goal-oriented, assertive and confident.  He has the ability to quickly evaluate a situation but is not afraid to admit he has made a mistake.  Richardson will modify his course of action when necessary.  He takes a practical approach to governing, focusing on solutions to problems rather than ideology.

What about Bill Richardson the person?  We can learn much from the person that has known him for forty three years of his life, Barbara Richardson.  They met when he was 17 and she was 16 and gave him a ride back to his school from the nearby town. 

Bill Richardson is goal-oriented, assertive and confident.  He has served as a Congressman, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Secretary of Energy and is in his second term as Governor of New Mexico after a landslide re-election victory in November 2006.  

Here are five of many reasons why I believe Richardson possesses the experience, vision and leadership skills to be a great President:

1.  A Bright Vision for America
2.  An Ironclad Promise to Promptly End the U.S. Occupation of Iraq
3.  A Bold Agenda To Address The Pressing Challenges Facing Our Nation and Planet
4.  The White House and A Landslide Victory for Democrats Nationwide in 2008
5.  Comprehensive Immigration Reform In Accordance With the Values Upon Which Our Country Was Founded

Hillary Clinton's plan for ending the war is weak and imprecise.  She refuses to commit to bring all of our troops home by the end of her first term in office. Clinton's military and diplomatic advisers believe our invasion of Iraq was justified and a military solution exits for resolving the war. Clinton is not demonstrating the qualities of leadership we need in our next President to end the war in Iraq.

Five years ago was critical week in the decision by our nation to go to war with Iraq.  While the Senate was debating the war, Edwards gave a well-publicized speech in Washington, D.C. on October  7, 2002, supporting the Bush Administration's rationale for invading Iraq.  

At the time, Edwards was busy planning his run for President and seeking to position himself as a Southern war hawk.  He failed to read key intelligence reports available only to members of the Senate that cast doubt the Bush Administration's claims that Saddam possessed WMD and which influenced those that read them to vote against the war.  

Edwards had made up his mind that the U.S. should invade Iraq.  Edwards' judgment on Iraq was flawed in 2002 and it remains flawed today.  He refuses to commit to the withdrawal of ALL U.S. forces from Iraq by 2010 or even 2013.

Bill Richardson gave an extremely thoughtful speech yesterday at Georgetown University on the responsible path out of Iraq. Richardson also outlined a new foreign policy for the U.S., discussed our relations with Iran and explained need to restructure our armed forces.  

On Iraq, Richardson stated, “If you haven't seen enough to know that we need to get all the troops out then you aren't watching the same war that I and the rest of America are seeing. I don't think just changing the mission is enough — we need to end the war.”

Everyone should watch Richardson's speech and hear the compelling case he makes for ALL U.S. troops to leave Iraq now.  The video clip follows.

This diary is part of the candidate series for Bill Richardson on MyDD.  I am not part of his campaign.

Congressman, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Secretary of Energy and in his second term as Governor of New Mexico after a landslide victory in November 2006, Governor Bill Richardson is running for President to heal America and restore our place in the world. He possesses the experience, vision and leadership skills to be a great President.

Richardson is goal-oriented, assertive and confident. He has the ability to quickly evaluate a situation but is not rigid in his thinking and will modify policy when necessary. He takes a practical approach to governing, focusing on solutions to problems rather than ideology.

With this post I’m likely to become a fairly unpopular member of the liberal blogosphere, or at least the segment of bloggers like Markos who take pride in bashing Iowa’s first-in-the-nation status.  But as I wrote about on Bleeding Heartland yesterday and today on Political Forecast, the South Carolina GOP’s decision to move up their primary has created huge problems in the national calendar for selecting a nominee for president–and this is the case in both parties.

Carrie Giddins, the IDP’s Communications Director, released this statement earlier today:

“The South Carolina Republicans won’t dictate what Iowa does. The Iowa Democratic Party, our Chairman and our State Central Committee, will make a decision regarding the date of our caucuses with Governor Chet Culver, Senator Tom Harkin and other political leaders that protects Iowa’s interests.

The Iowa Caucuses are scheduled for January 14th, 2008 and we are moving forward with plans for that date.

Iowa will hold the first in the nation caucuses.”

Carrie’s pretty direct, and having met with her before, she’s serious when she says that Iowa will hold the nation’s first caucus.  And I’ve got no doubt that she and others inside the Iowa Democratic Party are pissed with Katon Dawson and South Carolina Republicans.  I’m sure folks at the Republican Party of Iowa are just as pissed as well.

To the best of my knowledge, on August 25th the DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee will be meeting in Washington, DC, and will be debating whether or not to penalize Florida Democrats because of the decision by the Florida legislature to move their primary from February 5th to January 29th.  The penalty Florida faces is basically a preliminary wrist-slap that says “we won’t seat your delegates at the DNC Convention next August.”  The thing is, whomever has the nomination is going to demand Florida’s delegates be seated–for all practical purposes the nominee trumps the existing DNC chair and will dictate from that point on what will happen.

However, last August the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee hammered out their new rules which would again penalize state parties as mentioned above, but also penalize candidates who campaigned in early states.  From the DNC website:

“There is a new rule that imposes new sanctions on presidential candidates. If a state, any state, violates the rule on timing/the window, presidential candidates will face sanctions if they campaign in that state. Examples of campaigning include: making personal appearances in the state, hiring campaign workers, and buying advertising and so on.

Currently, the only punishment for states that violate the window was on State Parties. This new enforcement provision recognizes that presidential candidates must also bear a responsibility in enforcing the window or face sanctions.”

The window the DNC is talking about is that on or after February 5th, every other state besides Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina could hold their state’s caucus or primary (effectively declaring that Tuesday to be the official “Super Tuesday”).

So what I’m looking for on August 25th in DC is for Iowa’s Democratic representative on the Rules and Bylaws Committee, First Vice Chair Sarah Swisher, to stand up and demand that Florida get their slap on the wrist as well as get a statement from the committee reaffirming its commitment that should any candidate campaign in Florida that they should be penalized.

As the New York Times reported after the new rules were passed:

“The sanctions will be directed at candidates who campaign in any state that refuses to follow a 2008 calendar of primaries and caucuses that was also approved Saturday. Any candidate who campaigns in a state that does not abide by the new calendar will be stripped at the party convention of delegates won in that state.”

Coincidently enough, even if Iowa is forced to move our caucus date before the DNC scheduled date of January 14th, we’re still safe from sanctions because Iowa Democrats don’t actually select delegates to the DNC National Convention until the late spring or summer state convention.

So, essentially, Iowa can’t be punished for responding to Florida and the South Carolina GOP’s moves, but we should ask for strong punishments and statements from the DNC reaffirming Iowa’s position as first in the nation, at least for this cycle.

We’ve had a tried and true method that has worked and framed the start of the presidential campaign season for thirty years.  We must act to protect this tradition–and Iowa Democrats should expect the IDP and its leadership to fight hard for our status.

And as a quick note, if any of my dates or information are factually wrong, please let me know in the comments as soon as possible.

UPDATE (6:44 PM Central Time): So here’s the deal.  A December caucus date is seeming a bit less likely.  At least that’s according to the calculations that Chris Bowers over at Open Left has provided to readers.  His calendar shapes out like this:

• Friday, January 4th: Iowa caucuses
• Saturday, January 12th: New Hampshire primary
Saturday, January 19th: Nevada Democratic caucus, South Carolina Republican primary
• Tuesday, January 29th: Florida primary, South Carolina Democratic primary
• Tuesday, February 5th: Super Tuesday

His reasoning, again, is here and worth a read.

And one more thing.  Gov. Culver talked with Kay Henderson and others today emphasizing his support for Iowa as first-in-the-nation state.  And he says that Iowa will be first, no matter what.

– – – – – – – – – –

Oh holy hell.  I really wish I could confirm with any ease the exact date of the Iowa Caucuses but it seems likely not to count on January 14th, 2008, anymore.

First, I’ll let you read what my friend John Deeth reported: That the South Carolina GOP Chair will announce in New Hampshire that he’s moving his primary date earlier than their scheduled February 2nd, 2008, primary.

Now, according to Marc Ambinder and others, it looks like the South Carolina GOP will announce in NH that they’re moving their primary to January 19th, a full three days before the NH primary.  By announcing the move in NH, it seems likely that the NH Secretary of State will move his state’s primary up to Monday, January 7th, or Tuesday, January 9th.  That would almost guarantee an Iowa Caucus date in December of 2007, unless both the IDP and the RPI decide to hold the Iowa Caucuses on Friday, January 4th.  That doesn’t seem likely as its right after the new year.

Other complications still exist.  On August 25th, the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee will meet to decide whether or not to sanction Florida Democrats because their state’s primary is now on January 29th (thanks to a Republican Florida legislature and governor).  Florida Democrats are seeking an exemption, but it is likely that Iowa Democrats will fight hard for sanctions to Florida’s delegation to the Democratic National Convention next summer in Denver.  The outcome of the Rules and Bylaws meeting is still quite up in the air.

Also, South Carolina Democrats are still planning their primary for January 29th, which means they’ll still actually be on schedule.

Michigan is still considering moving its primary to January 29th as well, but Gov. Jennifer Granholm is facing pressure not to sign a bill that would move the primary earlier (but also faces pressure from in-state Democrats like Sen. Carl Levin to move the date earlier–as a sidenote, Levin is crybaby who is just pissed that Nevada and South Carolina were the states that the DNC picked to insert into the IA-NH domination).

Summary: If you’re planning to caucus, keep the months of December and January open.

And if you want to keep track of the best news on the primary/caucus schedule, try Ballot Access News.

The final vote was 52 in favor of cloture and 47 opposed (Reid switched to “No” at the end so that he could bring a motion to reconsider at a later date–a procedural move).  Dems picked up one new Republican waverer in the form of Sen. Susan Collins of Maine.

Greg Sargent’s got the best write-up of the GOP blockage here.  As he says:

What this means in a nutshell is this: While a majority of the U.S. Senate favors withdrawal from Iraq, the Senate can’t vote on a measure that would accomplish this — because the GOP Senate leadership won’t allow it.

Repeat that line to everyone you know.  Senate Republicans are blocking a true change of course in Iraq.

And in response, Senate Maj. Leader Harry Reid has pulled the Defense Authorization bill and it appears that he won’t bring it back to the floor until he can be guaranteed an up-or-down vote on the Levin-Reed Amendment and three others that will be offered (Warner-Lugar, Salazar ISG, and Landrieu).  Talk about playing hardball.

Earlier tonight, I stood on the floor of the Senate to show my support for our men and women in uniform by trying to bring them home.

As you know, the Senate held a rare all-night session because Republicans are filibustering our efforts to get an up or down vote on re-deploying our troops out of Iraq.

It’s that simple.

In an extraordinary display of fealty to President Bush and his failed Iraq policy, Republicans are literally refusing to allow a vote on an amendment to bring home our soldiers and reduce the U.S. involvement in Iraq.

The American people deserve to know where every Senator stands on the most important issue facing Congress. We must not allow Republicans to block an up or down vote with procedural semantics.

I wanted to make sure my colleagues knew where Iowans stand on the issue. So earlier tonight, while on the floor, I read some letters that I have received from Iowans, including Iowa soldiers and their families.

I hope that this one sleepless night in the U.S. Senate will awaken Republicans to the reality that their loyalty belongs not to the President, but to the American people.

Well, well, well.  It looks like Senate Democrats are finally starting to play hardball with President Bush.  From Nicole Duran at IowaPolitics.com:

“Senate Democrats aren’t feeling very charitable toward former GOP Rep. Jim Nussle.

Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) confirmed Tuesday that an anonymous “hold” has been placed on Nussle’s nomination to lead the Office of Management and Budget.

Conrad said he did not know who placed the hold — any senator can prevent a nomination, or legislation, from coming to the floor by objecting, even anonymously, to the Senate majority leader. Holds are traditionally honored, though the majority leader may ignore it if he feels the hold has been placed for too long.”

I’m not sure what prompted Senate Dems to start getting tough on Bush and his nominees, but I’m willing to bet that his threatened veto of any pullout legislation on the Defense Authorization is partially the cause.

Nussle has consistently been a Bush clone and loyal foot soldier doing as commanded with regards to the federal budget.  He helped oversee the creation of the largest debts and deficits in recent American history.  That’s a principled enough reason to oppose his nomination, if you ask me.