On Wednesday, March 19, Ed Fallon is holding a town-hall meeting on Iraq and veterans’ issues from 8:30 to 9:30 am at the Old Fire Station #4, 1041 8th St., Des Moines.

I can’t go to this event, but if any Bleeding Heartland readers are able to attend, please put up a comment to let us know how it went.

Whether or not you can go to this meeting, how important do you think the Iraq war will be in the IA-03 primary?

Even I know that Al Qaeda is a Sunni extremist group, and Iran is governed by a Shiite regime.

According to the Washington Post, Republican presidential candidate John McCain hasn’t grasped that fact:

He said several times that Iran, a predominately Shiite country, was supplying the mostly Sunni militant group, al-Qaeda. In fact, officials have said they believe Iran is helping Shiite extremists in Iraq.

Speaking to reporters in Amman, the Jordanian capital, McCain said he and two Senate colleagues traveling with him continue to be concerned about Iranian operatives “taking al-Qaeda into Iran, training them and sending them back.”

Pressed to elaborate, McCain said it was “common knowledge and has been reported in the media that al-Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran, that’s well known. And it’s unfortunate.” A few moments later, Sen. Joseph Lieberman, standing just behind McCain, stepped forward and whispered in the presidential candidate’s ear. McCain then said: “I’m sorry, the Iranians are training extremists, not al-Qaeda.”

It was a big mistake for Hillary Clinton to say a couple of weeks ago that McCain had passed the commander-in-chief threshold. Anyone who doesn’t even know the most basic information about our enemies in the Middle East is unqualified to be president. What have his staff and advisers been briefing him on in the Senate and on the campaign trail?

Over at MyDD, Jonathan Singer summarizes the reaction from around the blogosphere and points out that this was no slip of the tongue. McCain has been making the same erroneous statement for some time, demonstrating that he has no clue about the differences between Sunni and Shiite extremists.

MyDD user Steve M’s take on the situation is amusing.

UPDATE: Mark Kleiman was apparently reading my mind:

http://www.samefacts.com/archi…

Given McCain’s buffoonish performance in Jordan, wouldn’t this be a good time for Hillary Clinton to say, “Gee, I thought he was ready to be Commander-in-Chief, but it sure doesn’t sound like it. The least we should expect from the President is some basic knowledge about who our enemies are.”

Which statehouse races are you watching especially closely this year?

As I’ve written before, I will be helping Jerry Sullivan, who is running for the open seat in House district 59.

I learned a few days ago that Ro Foege is retiring from House district 29. Nate Willems is running in the Democratic primary for that seat. You may remember his front-page posts last year at MyDD. I don’t know anything about the other Democratic candidate in that district.

Consider this an open thread for talking about interesting races and candidates for the Iowa House or Senate.

I encourage any and all Democrats running for the legislature to drop by and put up a diary here from time to time.

I missed this last week, but Daily Kos user mcfly brought it to my attention: a Republican has filed to run for Congress in Iowa’s third Congressional district.

Today, Clive Republican Kim Schmett announced his run for United States Congress in the 3rd Congressional District.

Schmett, 55, says the district needs a representative who will fight for lower taxes, fiscal responsibility and more quality jobs for Iowa workers.

“My goal in Congress is to rein in spending, so people can keep the money they have worked so hard to earn,” said Schmett. “They should be able to spend it on their families, not support a bloated government. For far too long, government has failed to weed out inefficiencies and waste. Congress just passed a Democrat budget bill that will cut the earned income credit in half and increase an average family’s taxes by $3,000 dollars. Too often, politicians forget that it’s the people’s money first, not theirs.”

Schmett, a veteran of the U.S. Army, is the executive director of the state association for children’s homes and shelters. He is the former director of the Iowa Department of Inspections and Appeals, and served as the chief of staff for former Congressman Greg Ganske.

Bleeding Heartland readers, I would be interested in your views on how the Iowa caucuses might have turned out differently.

Let’s assume that Barack Obama runs the exact campaign he ran last year in terms of strategy and execution, and has the same monetary resources he had available.

What, if anything, could other candidates have done to beat Obama in Iowa? Keep in mind that both Clinton and Edwards executed their strategies pretty well in Iowa (in my opinion), with

both of them getting more than 70,000 people to stand in their corners on January 3. That “should” have been enough to win, even if turnout had been “only” 50 percent greater than the previous record for Iowa Democrats.

Given the Obama campaign’s excellent strategy and execution, as well as their virtually unlimited monetary resources in Iowa, what could other candidates have done to win the Iowa caucuses?

These are examples of the kinds of questions I’m interested in:

Should Hillary have used Bill more, or used him less?

Would it have helped Clinton or Edwards to go negative on Obama?

Were there better methods Clinton could have used to identify and turn out supporters?

Was there anything Richardson could have done in the summer to build on the bump he got from his television commercials in May?

Would Edwards have done better if his stump speech and advertising had focused on different issues?

Should Edwards have spent some money on advertising in the summer, when he slipped behind Clinton in the Iowa polls, rather than keeping his powder dry?

Feel free to post your insights about these and similar questions on this thread.

Alternatively, if you have thoughts you’d rather keep off the record, please e-mail them to me at desmoinesdem AT yahoo.com, or e-mail me your phone number and I will call you to chat. I will keep your views confidential.

In a rare post not related to Barack Obama, Gordon Fischer put up a press release from Leonard Boswell’s campaign over at Iowa True Blue. (Note to the Boswell campaign: please start sending your press releases to desmoinesdem AT yahoo.com.)

The release notes that the Drum Major Institute for Public Policy recently gave Boswell a 100 percent 90 percent “A” grade for his work on behalf of the middle class. Boswell’s campaign also mentioned that a different group recently named him the most powerful U.S. representative from Iowa, and was ranked the 135th most powerful person among the 435 members of the U.S. House.

You can find more details about how the Drum Major Institute compiled its Congressional scorecard on middle class issues, as well as ratings for all 535 members of Congress, by clicking here.

The full text of Boswell’s press release is after the jump.

The national organization eQualityGiving, “The Online Donor Community for LGBT Equality,” has endorsed Ed Fallon in the Democratic primary in Iowa’s third Congressional district. A press release from Fallon’s campaign notes that eQualityGiving has endorsed only nine federal candidates this year, and that Fallon is the “only candidate in the nation to earn this endorsement twice.”

The full text of the release from Fallon’s campaign is after the jump.

Noneed4thneed is posting about the Marshall County Democratic convention over at Century of the Common Iowan.

If you've got a story to share about your county convention, I encourage you to comment on this thread or put up a diary here.

UPDATE: John Deeth has the story from Johnson County here (not many changes, as Edwards delegates did not realign):

http://jdeeth.blogspot.com/200…

Noneed4thneed says the Edwards delegates realigned in Marshall County, and 90 percent of them went to Obama:

http://commoniowan.blogspot.co…

There’s more info in this Iowa County Convention results thread at Daily Kos:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/…

The U.S. House has been debating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The invaluable Kagro X, one of the very best analysts ever to post at Daily Kos, explained some of the complicated legislative maneuvers in this post yesterday. Kagro X gave the short version of what’s going on in this post earlier today.

Click that first link if you’ve been disappointed in Senate Majority leader Harry Reid, because he did a very clever thing on this bill.

You will recall that Leonard Boswell was one of 21 House Democrats to work with Republicans to try to secure retroactive immunity for telecom companies in this bill. Some background information is here.

Well, today Boswell has joined with the majority of House Democrats. mcjoan has more at Daily Kos, including a statement from Boswell.

Raise your hand if you think Boswell would have changed his position on this issue if he were not facing a primary challenge from Ed Fallon.

UPDATE: mcjoan explains what happened here:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyo…

Boswell and 12 other blue dogs stuck with the Democrats today. Good for them.

SECOND UPDATE: Call Boswell’s office and thank him for this vote:

Rep. Leonard L. Boswell, D-Iowa — Phone: (202) 225-3806, Fax: (202) 225-5608

According to Daily Kos user Los Diablo,

#

* [new] I just got off the phone with his D.C. office (9+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

   Rolfyboy6, Miss Blue, oldjohnbrown, 3goldens, Ma Joad, mffarrow, robroser, eco d, llamaRCA

and they thanked me for thanking him because they are getting a hammered with negative calls because he supported this.

Senator Tom Harkin: Bush has vetoed him more than any senator.

by Los Diablo on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:18:30 PM PDT

By the way, I love Los Diablo’s signature line about Harkin!

Since Barack Obama’s supporters claim he is running a people-powered campaign, I’m surprised they are not more upset that he is working behind the scenes to derail any plan for Michigan and Florida to redo their primaries.

As you know, the DNC stripped both states of their delegates for moving their primaries up to January. No one campaigned in either state, and Hillary Clinton won both primaries, although in Michigan hers was the only name on the ballot, with supporters of Obama and other candidates voting “uncommitted.”

Given how close this primary campaign is, and how important Michigan and Florida are in the general election, it seems only logical to find some compromise that would allow delegates from those states to be seated at the Democratic National Convention this summer. I understand why Obama doesn’t want to accept the delegate allocations from the January primaries, because he didn’t campaign in either state.

However, I don’t see the rationale for his campaign ruling out re-votes in both states. Why does Obama fear taking a few weeks after Pennsylvania to campaign in Michigan and Florida so that Democrats can express their preferences? Money is not a problem for him–he has more cash on hand than Clinton.

One compromise that seems sensible to me is a mail-in election in both states, which would be much less costly than restaging an ordinary primary. But Obama’s co-chair in Michigan has ruled that out, claiming that

“It disenfranchises people who need to participate and there are many questions with regard to security.”

Hunter said the Obama campaign will accept nothing but a 50-50 split of Michigan delegates between Clinton and Obama, who removed his name from the January ballot here in protest of the early date.

I don’t understand how a mail-in ballot disenfranchises anyone. If anything, the experience of Oregon shows that it would lead to much greater participation.

And what justification is there for a 50-50 delegate split out of Michigan? That is essentially the same thing as not counting Michigan voters at all.

But wait, it gets better: Obama is a co-sponsor of a bill in the U.S. Senate called

“The Universal Right To Vote By Mail Act”, which declares that NOT ALLOWING mail in voting in every state (28 do through absentee balloting) disenfranchises voters […]

That’s right, Barack Obama, who thinks all states should allow mail-in voting, has suddenly decided in the middle of a tough primary that it would not be fair to let Michigan and Florida Democrats mail in ballots.

He appears to be afraid of losing high-turnout elections in those states. And no wonder: he seems to do a lot better in lower-turnout caucuses (in some states getting two, three or four times as many delegates as Clinton) than in large-state primaries.

In addition, the demographics of Florida (lots of seniors, Latinos and Jews) and Michigan (lots of working-class whites and Catholics) seem to favor Clinton.

Talk Left commenter Steve M (a Clinton supporter) linked to these comments at the Michigan Liberal blog, in which Obama supporters in Michigan criticize the stance his campaign is taking against a re-vote.

Does Obama want to go into a general-election campaign having demanded that Florida and Michigan residents not have their votes counted in the primary?

In the Sunday opinion section, the Des Moines Register editorial board gave Leonard Boswell a “thistle” for using his franking privilege to send out a brochure that “crashes across” the line between “legitimate constituent communication and overt political campaigning.”

Ed Fallon has already complained about Boswell sending out campaign communications at the taxpayers’ expense.

From time to time I’m posting about the IA-03 primary at Daily Kos, MyDD and Open Left. If you’d like to join the conversation there, please leave a comment on the threads below my latest installment:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/…

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008…

http://www.openleft.com/showDi…

Democrat Bill Foster won today’s special election to serve out the remainder of this term representing Illinois’ 14th Congressional district:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyo…

Former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert resigned from the seat, forcing the special election.

The NRCC spent more than $1 million, about 20 percent of its cash on hand, to defend this red district, and still lost the seat.

Keep in mind that more than two dozen Republicans in the U.S. House are retiring this year, forcing the GOP to defend a lot of open seats. The DCCC’s fundraising is strong, putting Democrats in a good position to expand their majority in the House.

Anyone still worried that Republicans will be able to mount an effective challenge for Iowa’s third district in case Ed Fallon defeats Leonard Boswell in the primary?

What Big Tent Democrat (an Obama supporter) said:

So we are celebrating “democracy” in Wyoming today. The “will of the people?” Not hardly. Another travesty of the Democratic Party.

Do you know that if 8,000 voters come out in Wyoming today to select their 13 delegates that means that 615 Wyomingians will be selecting a delegate to our national convention (8000 divided by 13.) By contrast, when 4.4 million Californians voted in their primary, they selected 370 delegates, which is to say 1 delegate for every 11,892 Californian who voted.

The will of the people? Please never mention that phrase again when discussing the pledged delegate count.

So, one participant in the Wyoming caucuses today has as much say over our nomination as 19 Californians who voted in the primary (or 8.6 Iowans who came to the caucuses in January).

But Obama supporters, you keep chanting about how the lead in pledged delegates is the only factor superdelegates should keep in mind when it’s time to vote for our nominee.

I have been critical of the Iowa caucus system, even though some elements of the system favored my candidate. I don’t like the electoral college, even though it is possible that someday a Democrat may win 270 electoral votes despite losing the nationwide popular vote.

Big Tent Democrat is one of very few Obama supporters who acknowledges that certain elements of our nominating system are undemocratic, even though those elements favor his candidate.

UPDATE: In the comments below that thread on TalkLeft, user waldenpond wrote:

I have a spreadsheet with votes/dels etc. I have dels for red state/blue state. For the GE Clinton would has 78 to Obama’s 100 red.  Clinton 815 to Obama’s 83 for blue.  I have by state the number of votes it took to get the dels.  I do it because I find it interesting, but I don’t think any of it means anything.  Raw vote against dels.. Clinton 9289 votes per del.  Obama 8553 votes per del.

Interesting. So Clinton has won more than 700 more popular votes per delegate than Obama has. If he does very poorly in PA and in any FL re-vote, he could well end up losing the popular vote despite retaining his lead in pledged delegates.

About a month ago, Ed Fallon’s campaign issued a press release criticizing Leonard Boswell for sending out a mass mailer on environmental issues. Key excerpt:

“Boswell is trying to paint himself as an environmentalist,” Fallon said, “but his voting record says otherwise. And for him to mail campaign literature on the public’s tab is flat out wrong.”

The mailing focuses on Boswell’s vote in December for the Energy Independence and Security Act that raises fuel efficiency standards to 35 mpg by 2020. However, in 2001 when House Democrats tried to raise these same CAFE standards to 27.5 mpg by 2007, Boswell joined Republicans to defeat the proposal (08/01/01). “Boswell’s reversal of position, Fallon said, “came only after he learned I might be running against him.” He said the same was true of Boswell’s support for the Safe Climate Act, which was introduced in March 2007. “It took until December – nine months – for Boswell to decide to support the legislation,” Fallon said.

It’s probably good politics for Fallon to complain about Boswell sending out campaign-style fliers at taxpayer expense, but let’s face it–the franking privilege is one of the advantages of incumbency. It’s not realistic to expect Boswell not to use this advantage during the primary campaign.

I never saw that Boswell mailer on the environment–presumably it got tossed in the recycling bin. However, this week I got a piece from Boswell about economic issues. It has the look and feel of a campaign mailing, but the small print says, “This mailing was prepared, published and mailed at taxpayer expense.”

After the jump I have transcribed this week’s mailer for the benefit of readers who are following this race closely but don’t live in the third Congressional district.

As I mentioned on Tuesday, Leonard Boswell convened a town-hall meeting by telephone on Tuesday, but I was not able to participate.

The Des Moines Register reported that Boswell took questions for about an hour during the call. The only specific question the Register mentioned related to Boswell’s vote for the 2005 bankruptcy bill, which most Democrats in Congress opposed:

“I am a survivor of the farm crisis, and saw folks that bankrupted when they really had the ability to pay back,” said Boswell, who owns a cattle farm in southern Iowa. “It seems to me like when we sign our name on the line and promise to pay, that we have a responsibility if we have the ability to pay.”

At the same time, more help and counseling are needed to assist consumers from falling too deeply into debt, Boswell said. He said he worked very hard to not fall into bankruptcy when he faced financial problems with his own farm operation.

The bankruptcy bill vote is one of many Ed Fallon has criticized in his primary challenge of Boswell.

I hope to be able to listen in on one of Boswell’s telephone town-hall meetings, assuming he has more.

Fallon held live town-hall meetings yesterday in Tama, Amana and Des Moines. If anyone attended one, please post a comment or a diary to let us know how it went. Fallon has more town-hall meetings scheduled for next Wednesday, and I’ve put the details after the jump.

While we’re on the subject, I want to address something I’ve heard from a handful of Democrats I know about this primary. A few people have told me that they won’t defend Boswell’s voting record, and they would like to support a primary challenger, just not Ed Fallon. Maybe they don’t like that Fallon supported Ralph Nader in 2000, or maybe they have some other issue with something Fallon did years ago in the state legislature.

Let’s be clear: the choice for Iowa’s third district is Boswell or Fallon, not Boswell or some fantasy liberal who has never made a mistake.

Democrats willing to run against well-funded, entrenched incumbents do not grow on trees. If you want to see a more progressive Democrat representing Iowa’s third district, you should be supporting Fallon now. If he loses the primary, you can be sure that no one will ever challenge Boswell in a primary again.

Whenever Boswell retires, which could be many years from now, there will be a crowded Democratic primary for this seat, and there is no guarantee a progressive will win.

If you like Boswell and on balance think he deserves to be re-elected, that’s understandable. But if you would rather support a different kind of Democrat for this seat, get behind Fallon now. Don’t hide behind the excuse that you’d rather support some other primary challenger some other year.

MyDD user lipris linked to this post from the Albany Project blog, which includes a list of the 24 Democratic-held U.S. House seats being targeted this year by the NRCC.

None of the three House seats held by Iowa Democrats are on the list. Neither Bruce Braley (IA-01) nor Leonard Boswell (IA-03) has a Republican challenger yet. Braley is officially launching his re-election campaign today. Boswell is facing a primary challenge from Ed Fallon.

I think that Dave Loebsack (IA-02) has a Republican challenger, but I can’t find the link to an article about that. I would be shocked if he has any trouble holding his seat. He will have the army of Obama volunteers helping him if the challenge turns out to be serious.

It looks like a very good year for Iowa Democrats. The caucuses in January prompted nearly 60,000 people to register as Democrats, while only about 7,600 Iowans became Republicans to participate in the GOP caucuses. According to Secretary of State Mike Mauro,

as of March 1, there were 701,285 registered Democrats in Iowa. There were 615,576 Iowans registered as Republicans and 761,201 not affiliated with a party.

Meanwhile, at MyDD Jonathan Singer discusses the GOP’s voter registration problem on the national level.

Former state Representative George Eichhorn, who served three terms in the Iowa House before losing his seat in the 2006 election, announced that he will seek the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate this year.

Up to now, Tom Harkin’s only declared opponent was Cedar Rapids businessman Steve Rathje, who had less than $60 in campaign cash at the end of 2007. Harkin started the year with close to $3.5 million cash on hand.

Within the last hour I got a robocall from Leonard Boswell informing me about some kind of telephone town-hall meeting tonight.

Was anyone able to listen in on this call? I am curious.

I am pretty sure that the robocall directed me to Boswell’s Congressional website (boswell.house.gov) for more information–not to the campaign website (www.boswellforcongress.com).

Then, about 20 minutes ago I got my first phone call from a field organizer for Boswell. I was frank with him, saying I’ve supported Leonard in the past and like him, but he’s voted against my interests too many times. I’m going for Fallon in the primary and will support the winner of the primary in the general. The field organizer was polite and thanked me for being direct.

Boswell is taking this primary challenge seriously, and that’s good for residents of the third district. Obviously, I hope Fallon wins the primary, but even if he doesn’t, I think the challenge will nudge Boswell toward better serving his constituents.

UPDATE: A franked mailer from Boswell arrived in the mail on Wednesday afternoon. It certainly looks like a campaign piece–I will transcribe it later. The small print makes clear that it was prepared, published and mailed at taxpayer expense.

Tom Harkin is touring the state this Friday through Monday to officially launch his re-election campaign. He has events scheduled in Davenport, Dubuque, Iowa City, Burlington, Ames, Sioux City, Storm Lake, Des Moines, and Council Bluffs.

For details, click here:

http://www.tomharkin.com/events

I was pleased to learn yesterday that Harkin has introduced a “complete streets” bill in the Senate. Here is more information from a press release issued by the Thunderhead Alliance:

HARKIN INTRODUCES BILL TO MAKE ROADS SAFE FOR EVERYONE

To reduce accidents, legislation will create ‘Complete Streets’ to keep motorists, transit vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians safe

Washington, D.C. – Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) today introduced The Complete Streets Act of 2008, which would work to promote the design of streets that are safe for all of those using the street- including motorists, bus riders, bicyclists, and pedestrians, including people with disabilities.  Between 1993 and 2003, nearly 52,000 pedestrians and more than 7,400 bicyclists were killed in road accidents; studies show that the designing streets with pedestrians in mind may reduce pedestrian risk by as much as 28 percent.  Harkin was joined in this effort by Senator Tom Carper (D-DE).

“Making our streets bike and pedestrian friendly is a win-win for us all,” said Harkin.  “It not only promotes healthier lifestyles, it lowers the amount of traffic congestion that many people deal with every day.”

A recent study by the Texas Transportation Institute found that providing more travel options, including public transportation, bicycling and walking facilities, is an important element in reducing traffic congestion.  The study reported that congestion was responsible for an annual $78.2 billion loss in fuel during traffic jams in 2005, an increase from $57.6 billion in 2000.

Also, as recently as 30 years ago, up to 70 percent of children were walking or riding bikes to school.  Currently, the number has dropped to only 10 percent.  Parents report that traffic safety is the main reason they do not permit their children to walk or bike to school.  This legislation will make our environment more inviting for physical activity, especially for kids.

Harkin’s proposal has been endorsed by: AARP, America Bikes, America Walks, American Council of the Blind, American Planning Association, American Public Transportation Association, American Society of Landscape Architects, Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals, League of America Bicyclists, National Center for Bicycling and Walking, Safe Routes to School National Partnership, Smart Growth America, Surface Transportation Policy Partnership, Thunderhead Alliance, and Rails to Trails Conservancy.

Great leadership by Harkin on an important transportation issue that is rarely covered by the media. If you see him on his announcement tour, please thank him for sponsoring this legislation. “Complete streets” improve the quality of life and are good for the environment and public health.

What's going to happen tomorrow?

I think Obama will win Vermont and Texas (popular vote and delegate count), while Clinton will win Ohio and Rhode Island. I don't think Clinton will gain serious ground on Obama.

If she doesn't win the popular vote in Ohio and Texas, I do think Clinton should drop out. If she wins the popular vote in those states, I think it's reasonable for her to continue on to Pennsylvania, even though it would be very hard for her to overtake Obama in the delegate count.

Tom Harkin and Leonard Boswell are good people and good Democrats, so it’s disappointing to read in the Sunday Des Moines Register that they are unwilling to take a stand against building new coal-fired power plans in Marshalltown and Waterloo.

It could hardly be more clear that building new coal-fired plants is bad for the environment, bad for the public’s health, and a net loss for Iowa’s economy (since we would be importing all the coal used in the plants).

Ed Fallon categorically opposes building new coal-fired power plants in Iowa. In the article I linked above, Boswell said he hadn’t studied the issue closely, because the proposed plants are located outside Iowa’s third Congressional district. Fallon has the right response:

Fallon said even though the plants would be outside Boswell’s district, some central Iowa towns would be downwind from the Marshalltown facility.

“It clearly affects our district, and because of concerns about greenhouse gas, it concerns our whole planet,” said Fallon, a former state representative who opposes construction of any new coal-fired plants.

Jennifer Oredson of Des Moines, the Greenpeace member who asked about the plants, said she had mixed feelings about the answers from Harkin and Boswell. She said her group opposes the plants, but she appreciated that both men are pushing for more conservation and alternative sources of energy.

She particularly noted Boswell’s support of the Safe Climate Act, which aims to limit greenhouse gases. But she said her group would not endorse a candidate in the primary.

By the way, Representatives Bruce Braley (IA-01) and Dave Loebsack (IA-02) signed onto the Safe Climate Act months earlier than Boswell. Boswell only took that position in December, when rumors of Fallon’s likely primary challenge were circulating.

In related news, Boswell was on Iowa Public Television this weekend saying he is more qualified than Fallon to represent the district. He also brought up Fallon’s support for Ralph Nader in 2000, which seems to be Boswell’s strongest card to play.

But Boswell’s comments on policy during that television program suggest that he is feeling the heat from Fallon’s criticism:

On other issues, Boswell said:

– Congress should consider repealing the North American Free Trade Agreement, which “hasn’t worked well.” Fallon opposes NAFTA and other free-trade agreements. Boswell supported a recent trade agreement with Peru.

– The country should look for ways to burn coal in efficient, environmentally friendly ways perhaps even “cleaning” Iowa’s high-sulfur coal. Fallon wants a moratorium on new coal plants, which are a chief source of greenhouse gases blamed for climate change.

Fallon has said Boswell supports greater use of coal and backed $14 billion in tax breaks and incentives for oil and gas companies.

– He supported tougher fuel efficiency standards for cars after voting against an earlier measure. “We recently raised the fuel-efficiency standard. If you don’t want to put people out of work, and not cause a new problem, you have to look at it carefully.”

– He supports removing troops from Iraq, but opposed a bill that would have led to immediate withdrawal, something that he believed would have cost too many lives. Boswell said he originally supported the war based on the administration’s statement that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, later disputed. Fallon has said he opposed the war all along.

I saw Fallon yesterday at the Natural Living Expo in Des Moines, and it looked like a lot of people were signing up to volunteer.

Also this weekend, the Des Moines Register reported that Fallon has raised about $130,000 for his campaign and has 16 paid staffers.

I’m going to try to flag political events for the week ahead every weekend. Please send me tips or put up a diary if you know of something interesting about to happen soon.

This Thursday is the “funnel” day, the date that will determine which bills have a chance of advancing this year and which are dead for the session. As a result, a bunch of groups are holding lobby days at the capitol this week.

On Monday, please consider helping the Iowa Commission on the Status of Women build support for a bill that would make it easier for working women to keep breastfeeding. Click the link for details about the “nurse in” at the capitol or how to contact your legislators.

On Tuesday, Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement are holding their rally and lobby day. Details can be found in this diary that was posted a few days ago.

Planned Parenthood of Greater Iowa is holding its lobby day on Wednesday to push for its “Prevention First” agenda. Click the link to read a post at Blog for Iowa with more details about this event.

On Friday, Windsor Heights Mayor Jerry Sullivan, Democratic candidate for Iowa House district 59, is having a campaign kick-off event at the Ankeny Regional Airport from 5 pm to 8 pm. Weather permitting, short rides on helicopters and small planes will be available at that event. For more information, check out the Sullivan for State Representative website.

I am proud to say that I wrote a check for Sullivan’s campaign a couple of weeks ago.

I encourage everyone to support our candidates for state and local office this year. Your donations go further in those races than they do in a multi-zillion-dollar presidential campaign.

Speaking of which, I recently learned that James Van Bruggen is running against Dwayne Alons in House District 4. Van Bruggen’s campaign website is here.

You may remember Alons for his idiotic comment that global warming is not a problem in light of modern refrigeration and air conditioning, or his baffling observation that global warming may help us by making us stronger and taller, like the ancient Mayans. House District 4 leans strongly Republican, but I am very glad someone has stepped up to challenge Alons.

As one of the few Iowa bloggers who is not enthusiastic about Barack Obama, I’ve noticed some odd behavior among some of his supporters. I have questions for those of you who back Obama after the jump.

I’ve been thinking about these questions for some time, but felt compelled to write them down after reading this piece by Daily Kos superstar diarist kid oakland, as well as the comments below it.  

Hillary Clinton started running this ad, which suggests that Obama is not up to the job of handling international crises:

I don’t think this is a great ad. I understand the experience argument, and I do think Hillary is more experienced, but it hasn’t worked against Obama up to now, and I don’t see why this ad changes the game.

Obama hit back with this ad, which positions Obama as the candidate with superior judgment, because he opposed the Iraq War from the start:

I am not impressed with this ad either. I am tired of hearing Obama coast on a speech he gave five years ago. First of all, he took that speech off his website in 2003, when the war seemed to be going well. Second, his Senate voting record on all things connected to Iraq is EXACTLY THE SAME AS HILLARY CLINTON’S.

As a U.S. Senator, Obama has not shown superior judgment on Iraq compared to Clinton. He has stood on the sidelines while other senators tried to defund the war. I am not buying his claim to superior judgment on matters of foreign policy.

Probably Obama will get the better of this skirmish, because as usual, the media uncritically pass along his claim to superior judgment. I have never seen a single tv analyst point out that since getting elected to the Senate, Obama has done nothing more to end the war than Clinton has.

UPDATE: Jeralyn at Talk Left put up this excerpt from an interview Obama gave the New Yorker in November 2006:

http://www.newyorker.com/archi…

Where do you find yourself having the biggest differences with Hillary Clinton, politically?

You know, I think very highly of Hillary. The more I get to know her, the more I admire her. I think she’s the most disciplined-one of the most disciplined people-I’ve ever met. She’s one of the toughest. She’s got an extraordinary intelligence. And she is, she’s somebody who’s in this stuff for the right reasons. She’s passionate about moving the country forward on issues like health care and children. So it’s not clear to me what differences we’ve had since I’ve been in the Senate. I think what people might point to is our different assessments of the war in Iraq, although I’m always careful to say that I was not in the Senate, so perhaps the reason I thought it was such a bad idea was that I didn’t have the benefit of U.S. intelligence. And, for those who did, it might have led to a different set of choices. So that might be something that sort of is obvious. But, again, we were in different circumstances at that time: I was running for the U.S. Senate, she had to take a vote, and casting votes is always a difficult test.

Obama basically came right out and said that if he’d been in the Senate, he would have done the same thing as Hillary on the AUMF vote.

Ed Fallon turns 50 this Saturday, and his campaign has set an ambitious goal of collecting $50 from at least 1,000 donors to mark the occasion.

Everyone who gives $50 to the campaign will receive Fallon’s mother’s recipe for “killer apple pie.” You can contribute here:

http://www.actblue.com/page/50…

The campaign also has a number of public events scheduled for Saturday to mark Fallon’s birthday. I’m putting the details after the jump.  

Senator Tom Harkin wants the Democratic Party to scrap the idea of superdelegates in the future, the Des Moines Register reported on Friday:

“I am convinced this idea of superdelegates has to be done away with,” he said Thursday. “It gives these superdelegates too much power to decide things at the end and it should not be that way.”[…]

Harkin said Obama and Clinton already have approached him and asked for his support. He said that for now he is remaining neutral.

But he said he is concerned that the superdelegate party rules instituted in the 1980s are not helpful for Democrats. Some pressure is being exerted on superdelegates.

Harkin went on to say that Michigan and Florida should hold new elections this spring if they want their delegates to be seated at the Democratic National Convention. I share Harkin’s sentiments on the superdelegates, but scheduling new elections in these states is not practical. There’s no money to hold new primaries, and caucuses in such large states would not be feasible. Too many voters would be unable to participate.

I favor some kind of compromise that would allow Michigan and Florida’s delegates to be seated, such as cutting the number of delegates from those states in half (like the GOP did) and giving Obama the uncommitted delegates from Michigan.

Big Tent Democrat had a different idea for a Michigan/Florida compromise which, in his view, “enfranchises those voters who voted previously AND ensures that Obama gets a fair shot at winning those two states.”

Getting back to the issue of superdelegates, Todd Beeton put up a good post yesterday on the campaigns MoveOn.org and Democracy for America have launched against the idea of superdelegates. He points out that none of the Obama supporters who are now outraged about the superdelegates are arguing, for instance, that Ted Kennedy should switch his vote to Hillary Clinton just because she won the Massachusetts primary.

Beeton also linked to this video of an Obama supporter from Ohio, David Wilhelm. He argues that superdelegates should not back Clinton if Obama leads in pledged delegates, but he won’t promise to switch to Clinton if she ends up winning Ohio and the overall pledged delegate battle.

I got an e-mail today from Democracy for America, confirming that they are backing Ed Fallon in the primary to represent Iowa’s third Congressional district. Excerpt:

Last Tuesday, our Primaries Matter campaign delivered results and helped lead Donna Edwards to a resounding 24-point victory over Bush-Democrat Al Wynn in MD-04.

Ed Fallon is the next DFA-List endorsement and he’s taking on Bush-Democrat, Rep. Leonard Boswell in IA-03.

Contribute $20.08 right now and support a Democrat with the backbone to stand up for progressive values.

http://www.actblue.com/page/su…

Ed Fallon is a true progressive and he has a record of beating out-of-touch Democrats in Iowa. In 1992, he beat 10-year incumbent Gary Sherzan with 63% of the vote and became a State Representative. When the conservative party establishment tried to primary Ed out of the state legislature, Ed won again with 68% of the vote.

Now, with your help, Ed will beat Bush-Democrat Leonard Boswell. Here’s a breakdown of some of the important differences between them.

The chart didn’t come through well when I copied and pasted. Here’s what it showed in Fallon’s column:

The War in Iraq: opposed Bush’s war from the start and believes we need a more diplomatic approach to foreign policy, not just in Iraq but throughout the Middle East

Campaign Funding: has never accepted money from lobbyists

Spying on Americans: opposes Bush’s warrantless wiretapping of innocent Americans

The Climate Crisis: supports a moratorium on new coal-fired power plants and has lead the fight against government handouts to big business in Iowa

No Child Left Behind: is against this unfunded, ineffective Bush-mandate, and will work to get it repealed

On those same issues, here’s what Democracy for America listed in the Boswell column:

-voted for the Iraq War and has continued to support additional funding with no timetable to bring the troops home

-accepts donations from lobbyists

-voted for increased warrantless surveillance on the American people

-voted to provide $14 billion in tax breaks and incentives for oil and gas companies and supports greater use of coal

-voted for [No Child Left Behind] and did not fund it or attempt to repeal it

I don’t know how many members Democracy for America has, but it will be interesting to see how much money this appeal raises for Fallon’s campaign. Donna Edwards’ convincing victory may make people more willing to invest in another primary challenger.

By the way, John Deeth has a piece up at Iowa Independent about the role Boswell and 20 other “Blue dog” Democrats played in yesterday’s House debate on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Deeth’s piece linked to a post by Matt Browner Hamlin, who confirmed that all 21 House Democrats who cooperated with the Republicans on FISA have received contributions from the telecom industry. Boswell has received $5,000 in campaign contributions from AT&T.

UPDATE: I checked the page at ActBlue that Democracy for America set up for donations to Fallon. As of 2:25 pm, this appeal has raised $10,417 for Fallon from 305 donors. That’s impressive. I’m sure the total will increase substantially this evening, which is when many people have their internet time.

SECOND UPDATE: As of 10:30 pm, this appeal has raised $20,024 for Fallon from 582 donors. That’s an average of just under $35 per donor. Looks like a lot of those people will be willing and able to donate again before this race is over.

Thomas Beaumont wrote this article in the Sunday Des Moines Register on Iowa’s superdelegates. The whole article is worth reading, and it includes this useful sidebar:

Iowa is expected to have 12 superdelegates to the Democratic National Convention in Denver in August. They include all four Democratic members of Congress, Iowa’s governor and its six members of the Democratic National Committee. The 12th superdelegate will be chosen at the Iowa Democratic Party’s state convention in June.

Below are the names of those superdelegates, their titles and whom they have endorsed for the 2008 presidential nomination.

SUPPORTING HILLARY CLINTON

LEONARD BOSWELL, U.S. House member from Des Moines.

MIKE GRONSTAL, Iowa Senate majority leader from Council Bluffs and member of the DNC as chairman of Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee.

SANDY OPSTVEDT, Iowa labor union leader and at-large DNC member from Story City.

SARAH SWISHER, Iowa City nurse, labor union leader and member of the DNC as state Democratic Party vice chairwoman. Endorsed Edwards, but has backed Clinton since Edwards left the race.

SUPPORTING BARACK OBAMA

CHET CULVER, Iowa governor, endorsed Obama on Thursday.

MIKE FITZGERALD, Iowa treasurer and member of the DNC as member of National Association of State Democratic Treasurers’ executive committee.

DAVID LOEBSACK, U.S. House member from Mount Vernon.

UNCOMMITTED

SCOTT BRENNAN, Des Moines lawyer and member of the DNC as Iowa Democratic Party chairman.

BRUCE BRALEY, U.S. House member from Waterloo. Endorsed John Edwards in December, but is uncommitted since Edwards’ departure from the race.

TOM HARKIN, U.S. senator

RICHARD MACHACEK, Winthrop farmer and at-large DNC member. Was a longtime Edwards supporter, but now is uncommitted.

It was news to me that Swisher had committed to Clinton, although I’m not surprised, since Clinton has a better health care plan than Obama. I wonder if the other former Edwards supporters will be influenced by a possible Edwards endorsement, or if they will wait and see.

If you want to know what other states’ superdelegates are doing, keep an eye on the “Superdelegate transparency project”, which Chris Bowers announced yesterday at OpenLeft:

We are compiling the district-by-district results of the popular vote and pledged delegates, and then tracking these results against how superdelegates are currently pledged (or have publicly endorsed a candidate), and how they eventually vote. The aim of this project is to open up the Democratic nomination process, and to gauge what effect the superdelegates have on the nomination.

Bowers has a secondary goal, which is to persuade superdelegates to back the candidate who wins the pledged delegates and the overall popular vote:

Until a single leader in the popular vote and pledged delegate count emerges at the end of the primary and caucus season, superdelegates should not make a firm commitment to vote for any candidate at the convention other than the popular choice of their constituents. Endorsements can be made, but in order to uphold the principles of democracy within the Democratic Party, there should be no firm commitments from any given superdelegate to vote for anyone at the convention other than the candidate chosen by the constituents of that superdelegate.

[…]my democratic standard for super delegates is that if one candidate wins pledged delegates and popular votes according to all counts, then all super delegates should vote for that candidate. However, since we won’t know if a candidate achieves that standard until the end of the primary / caucus season, and since it is possible no candidate will ever achieve that standard, then in the interim all super delegates should pledge to vote their districts.

Will Iowa’s superdelegates go with the winner of all pledged delegates and the overall popular vote, even if that candidate is not their first choice? The Des Moines Register article includes the following quotes:

“If it’s as close as it stands today, I would still be casting my vote for Hillary,” said Sandy Opstvedt, a labor union leader and superdelegate from Story City.

Sounds like Opstvedt is leaving the door open to switching to Obama, if he becomes the clear leader in pledged delegates.

Governor Chet Culver, who endorsed Obama last week, cited Obama’s victory in the Iowa caucuses as a factor in his decision:

“I do think it matters too that Iowans have spoken loudly and clearly,” Culver said in a Des Moines Register interview Friday. “And because of that, in part, I felt compelled to also stand with him.”

“I’d love it if every superdelegate supported Barack Obama,” Culver also said, adding that he had begun making calls to the others.

Does that mean that Culver would not switch, even if Clinton finished the primaries with more popular votes and more pledged delegates than Obama?

Meanwhile, Iowa Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal

declined to comment on whether he would consider changing his support if Obama gathered more delegates than Clinton as the result of the upcoming nominating contests.

Gronstal said he can justify supporting Clinton in part because she got the most support, 43 percent, in Pottawattamie County on caucus night.

“Representing my constituents, I can make the case that’s exactly what I’m doing,” Gronstal said.

Representative Leonard Boswell (IA-03) seems more committed to sticking with Clinton unless she gives her superdelegate supporters the green light to switch to Obama. Speaking to the Register, Boswell

said the superdelegate system was not intended to reflect voter sentiment.

“It’s always important to respond to the voters, but I don’t think it was designed that way,” Boswell said.

He said he planned to support Clinton at the national convention, and would only consider a change after consulting her.

Expect Boswell to take a lot of heat for this position if Obama racks up a big lead in the pledged delegates later this spring. The Des Moines Register published this letter to the editor on Wednesday, written by a constituent in Des Moines:

Leonard Boswell’s pledge to cast his superdelegate vote for Sen. Hillary Clinton at the National Democratic Convention troubles me. Barack Obama won Boswell’s 3rd District by a large enough margin to win one more delegate than Clinton, who came in third in that district.

Yet Boswell’s vote, which he has only because he is our representative, will negate that margin of victory, rendering the votes of tens of thousands of us meaningless. That’s just not right. Maybe all of us whose votes Boswell will negate should return the favor by supporting his opponent, Ed Fallon, in the upcoming Democratic primary.

For the record, I agree with Bowers. Superdelegates should not be willing to hand the nomination to one candidate if the other candidate leads both the pledged delegate count and the overall popular vote. That would be disastrous for our party.

Paging Ed Fallon: Leonard Boswell may be making a big mistake, according to mcjoan’s diary on the fight over the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. She says that “House Republicans will try to derail the effort to pass a 21 day extension of the existing surveillance law and force a vote on the Senate bill.”

She cites this piece in CQpolitics:

As the House turned to a 21-day extension of a temporary law governing electronic surveillance, Republicans prepared a motion to force a vote on the long-term version passed Tuesday by the Senate.

House Republicans engineered a series of procedural votes Wednesday in a bid to derail the Democrats’ proposed extension, which President Bush said he would veto. They argued that the House should simply take up and send to the White House a surveillance overhaul bill that the Senate passed by 68-29.

Because 21 conservative Blue Dog Democrats have endorsed the Senate-passed bill, Republicans might be able to win approval of the Senate bill through a motion to recommit the extension with instructions to amend it with the text of the Senate bill.

Yes, Boswell is in that group of 21 House Democrats. Not only that, the same 21 Democrats wrote a letter to Nancy Pelosi on January 28, supporting retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies and other measures in the FISA bill that cleared the Senate.

mcjoan asked Daily Kos readers to contact the 21 Democrats. Here is the information for Boswell:

Phone: (202) 225-3806, Fax: (202) 225-5608

If you contact Boswell’s office, tell him to vote with House Democrats in support of the House version of the FISA bill, which is called the RESTORE Act.

Normally, I am not overly optimistic about calls to members of Congress making a difference, but Boswell is heading into a tough primary.

He can do the right thing for our civil liberties, which is also the smart move politically, or he can go with his fellow Blue Dogs giving cover to the Republican Party.

UPDATE: Paul Kiel has more on what happened in the House today. Boswell and the others don’t look like profiles in courage:

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpoi…

Barack Obama was expected to win today’s primaries in Washington, DC, Maryland and Virginia, but he won them by even larger margins than expected. He now leads Clinton in the pledged delegate count, and may even be leading if you include Michigan and Florida.

I agree with DrinksGreenTea that it would be disastrous to have superdelegates decide our nominee at the convention. I also would hate to see our nominee determined by the decision over whether Michigan and Florida delegates are seated. I would like to see a clear winner emerge from the primaries.

That means either Hillary needs to win all of the March 4 primaries convincingly, and win Pennsylvania in April, or Obama needs to take at least one of the following: Texas, Ohio, or Pennsylvania.

If Obama wins a big state, there will be almost no way for Clinton to overtake him, and I don’t think superdelegates will go against the candidate who leads in pledged delegates.

Hillary is paying the price for having no plan for the contests after February 5. Clearly they were counting on putting Obama away on Super Tuesday.

The netroots got very involved in two primaries so far this year. Mark Pera was challenging “Bush dog” Dan Lipinski in Illinois’ 3rd Congressional district. He ran a spirited campaign but lost by double-digits in the February 5 primary.

Donna Edwards came within a few percentage points of beating Al Wynn, one of the worst corporate Democrats in Congress, in Maryland’s 4th district primary two years ago.

This year she was backed not just by bloggers, but also by the SEIU, EMILY’s list, and Democracy for America. She even got the Washington Post’s endorsement.

The final returns aren’t in yet, but the media have already called the MD-04 primary for Edwards. It just goes to show that sometimes, a challenger can beat an entrenched incumbent.

Will the netroots and Democracy for America get behind Ed Fallon now? I hope so, although I must add that Leonard Boswell (disappointing as he can be) is nowhere near as disloyal to progressive causes as Wynn.

One of the many reasons I supported John Edwards was that I thought he would expand the map for Democrats in the general election. I thought he would hold all of the Kerry states, adding Iowa and Ohio with ease, and would make things competitive in several other places too (like Missouri).

I think Clinton or Obama could beat McCain or lose to him. Clinton’s winning scenario is obvious: turn out record numbers of women and Latinos, rack up a big lead among seniors, thereby holding most if not all of the Kerry states and adding Florida and/or Ohio.

Plenty of things could go wrong with Clinton’s scenario, but it is hard to argue that she would not turn out record numbers of women and Latinos.

Obama’s winning electoral vote scenario is less certain for me. Although nationwide polls show him doing slightly better against McCain than Clinton, he runs behind Clinton against McCain in several key states:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008…

And that’s before the right-wing hate machine has even opened fire against Obama. With Clinton, we pretty much know where her floor is, but with Obama, who knows?

That’s why Charlie Cook recently argued that Clinton would probably win between 48 percent and 52 percent of the general election vote, whereas Obama could get 55 percent or more, but could also conceivably get below 45 percent in the general.

Yesterday I asked Obama supporters at MyDD to give me their scenarios for 270 electoral votes against McCain. MyDD user JDF came up with this:

http://www.mydd.com/comments/2…

Here is how I see Obama getting to 270. This is a broad strokes view and I put it together relatively quickly so I am sure it is not perfect, but at least shows (from my POV) that it is not a stretch for Obama to get well past 270.

States he WINS

Wash: 11

Oregon: 7

Cali: 55

New York: 31

DC: 3

Maryland: 10

New Jersey: 15

Mass: 12

RI: 4

CT: 7

NH: 4

VT: 3

ME: 3

Michigan: 17

Illinois: 21

Minnesota: 10

That would give him 213 Electoral Votes.

There are 20 in Ohio, 21 in Pennsylvania, 27 in Florida, 13 in Virginia, 11 in Missouri, 11 in Indiana,  5 in Nevada, 5 in New Mexico, 10 in Wisconsin,  7 in Iowa

Puts 130 other Electoral Votes in play that I think fall anywhere from a strong edge for Obama to a moderate edge to McCain at this point.

Also, and this is a stretch, but I would argue that he can compete in states like South Carolina, Georgia, and Louisiana. Which puts another 32 electoral votes within reach but highly unlikely.

All in all I would give the GE edge to Obama. Also, I don’t think you give people in the south enough credit to be able to look past Obama’s skin color or Obama’s ability to transcend it. The people who “would never vote for a black guy” would never vote for a democrat either.

I think this is plausible (except for the part about SC, GA and LA), and I would throw in Iowa’s 7 votes for Obama against McCain. Also, Maine would probably deliver all 4 of its electoral votes to Obama (they don’t have winner-take-all there). Still, that only brings Obama to 221 electoral votes.

Florida is a write-off, given McCain’s strength among military and Latinos, and Obama’s relative weakness among Latinos and seniors.

Pennsylvania and Ohio could be real problems for Obama against McCain, in my opinion, especially when the media start covering Obama’s voting record on gun control in the Illinois legislature.

What do you think?

UPDATE: This diary by Clinton supporter silver spring is quite interesting:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008…

The MSM is constantly feeding us the theme that Obama would somehow be more “electable” in the general election because he overwhelmingly attracts independent voters, and if Hillary is the nominee, then McCain will get the bulk of the independents.  

There are two things wrong with the above proposition – 1) Even though Obama is attracting more independents, Hillary is not doing bad either; for one thing,  she is attracting more independents than McCain ….  but more importantly – 2) Independents are only one subset of traditional swing voters, the other subsets being Hispanics, white Catholics, white women and suburban voters.  Among the last four subsets above, Hillary is comfortably beating Obama (as well as McCain).

The diary has a lot of good analysis, including this bit, which refers to November 2004 exit poll data:

From the above 2004 numbers it’s interesting to note that Kerry actually beat Bush among independents (as well as Hispanics).  However, Bush comfortably beat Kerry among Catholics, white women and suburban voters.  Thus, it can be logically argued that Catholics, white women, suburban voters and Hispanics are as important as independent voters (if not more so) in order to guarantee Democratic success in November.

Catholics, white women and suburban voters are going to be crucial in states like Ohio and Pennsylvania.

A week or so ago I got another fundraising e-mail from Senator Harkin’s campaign.

Don’t take this the wrong way, because I strongly support and admire Harkin, but the $35 I spent on my ticket to the steak fry in September was the last money he’ll see from me for a while.

When you start the election year with $3.4 million in the bank, and your only declared opponent has $58.07 in the bank, I think my political donations will be more helpful to other Democrats.

As I’ve written before, candidates I plan to support this year include Ed Fallon, Windsor Heights Mayor Jerry Sullivan, who’s running for Iowa House district 59, and Heather Ryan, who is trying to unseat the Republican in Kentucky’s first Congressional district.

Big wins for Obama today in the Nebraska and Washington caucuses. Early returns in Louisiana also show him winning, not surprisingly.

I will be interested to see if there was more than a negligible vote for Edwards in Louisiana, since he began and ended his campaign there and has done a lot to bring the Katrina aftermath to the media’s attention.

On the Republican side, Huckabee embarrassed McCain (and Senator Sam Brownback, who backed McCain) in Kansas today. Huck seems to have a shot at winning in Washington and Louisiana too. That would be just fine by me. Anything that keeps the “Republicans divided, base can’t stand McCain” as the journalistic narrative has to be good for Democrats.

Governor Chet Culver has agreed to back Secretary of State Mike Mauro’s plan “to use state money to help counties switch to one uniform system with paper ballots,” the Des Moines Register reported on Saturday:

Culver said he has put together a “working group” that includes Mauro, lawmakers and Culver’s staff. They will try to figure out how to get counties equipped with optical scan machines that count paper ballots – as he has long advocated for, he said.

Good for him. As I’ve written before, spending money on equipment that would print receipts for touchscreen voting machines would just throw good money after bad. Better to ensure that every Iowan votes with a paper ballot, which can be recounted if necessary.

Also on Friday, Culver endorsed incumbent Leonard Boswell in the Democratic primary for Iowa’s third Congressional district:

He called Boswell a “dear friend” whose military background is valuable on national security issues, although he said he respects Fallon and supports the idea of competitive political races.

Meanwhile, the Register tries to make news by noting that Culver has refused to rule out running for president someday.

Come on, reporters. He’s barely a year into his first term, and with any luck we’re about to elect a Democrat who will serve as president until 2012 or 2016. Let Culver get a term or two under his belt before you start asking him whether he’ll run for president.

Voters will make their choice this weekend in Maine, Louisiana, Washington state, Nebraska and the Virgin Islands.

Jerome Armstrong put up the predictions from an Obama campaign memo at MyDD. I’m sure those are lowball predictions, though.

I don’t have a clue about the percentages, but I think Obama will win all these contests handily. Clinton’s best hope is probably Maine, where the demographics are more favorable to her and her base is less likely to be stuck at work (and unable to caucus) on a weekend.

What do you think?

Barack Obama’s presidential campaign has raised more than $7.6 million since the Super Tuesday primaries, and Hillary Clinton’s campaign claims to have raised more than $4 million in the past two days.

It’s incredible to see these candidates’ supporters coming out in droves to contribute, and it should bode well for our nominee going into the general election.

At the same time, I urge anyone who has donated to a presidential campaign to set some money aside for worthy candidates seeking other offices.

As I’ve mentioned before, I am supporting Ed Fallon in the Democratic primary for Iowa’s third Congressional district. The incumbent, Leonard Boswell, has a huge money advantage, but as noneed4thneed recently pointed out in this thread, Fallon raised more money from individuals in January than Boswell raised from individuals in the whole fourth quarter of 2007.

If you are so inclined, you can donate to Fallon’s campaign through ActBlue.

Or, if you prefer not to get involved in this primary, I encourage you to seek out and support one of the many fine Democrats challenging incumbent Republicans this year.

For instance, in this diary RDemocrat makes the case for Heather Ryan, a candidate for Congress in KY-01 facing “one of the worst Congressmen in the land, Exxon Ed Whitfield.”

There are many state and local races worth donating to this year as well. In fact, a donation of a few hundred dollars to a statehouse candidate is more likely to make a difference than a donation to a presidential campaign that’s already raised more than $100 million.

I will be writing a check this week to the campaign of Jerry Sullivan, who is running in Iowa House district 59. It’s an open seat that leans slightly Republican, but Sullivan is a great guy with outstanding qualifications and experience in public service as well as the business community. I think he’s got an excellent shot to win my district for the Democrats.

Consider this an open thread to tell us which campaigns you plan to support this year.

cross-posted at MyDD and Daily Kos

I don’t have a dog in this primary anymore. My candidate, John Edwards, is out of the race. I would vote for and do GOTV for either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama in the general. I see major drawbacks to both of them as candidates and potential presidents, but I also think either of them have a realistic chance to beat John McCain and run a good administration.

This diary contains some friendly advice for supporters of both candidates going forward.

Join me after the jump for more.

Results will be trickling in all evening, though it may be tomorrow before we know how many delegates each candidate won.

For those who say the popular vote and the state-by-state results are meaningless because “it’s all about delegates,” I disagree. Clinton and Obama may finish within 50 delegates of each other, but psychologically, and in terms of media coverage, it will make a big difference who won the popular vote in California.

Also, it will make a big difference in the media coverage if one candidate wins at least two-thirds of the states voting today, as opposed to each candidate winning about half of the 22 states.

UPDATE: Wow, an exciting night with both candidates able to claim victory.

Obama will win 13 or 14 of the 22 states, which is impressive. True, many of them have low numbers of  Democrats participating (AK, ID, ND), but it does impress me that Democrats in the deep-red states seem to want Obama at the top of the ticket. Obama won by a surprisingly large margin in DE and won narrowly in CT and MO. He won IL by a much larger margin than Clinton won NY.

He can credibly claim that he can compete in all parts of the country.

On the other hand, Hillary looks set to crush Obama in California, despite all of the endorsements and glowing media coverage for Obama there lately. Hillary also beat Obama convincingly in MA, where the governor and both senators were for Obama, and in NJ, where some pollsters had Obama leading toward the end. She won in red states like TN and OK, not to mention AR.

It will be a while before we figure out the delegate count. If it’s a tie or close to that, Obama will be very happy, because the states set to vote for the rest of this month heavily favor him. He could have a delegate lead going into March 4, when TX and OH vote.

But given how early the networks called California and Arizona, Clinton seems to have held on to her big edge among Latinos. That doesn’t bode well for Obama’s prospects of winning TX.

I am pleased with the outcome. I didn’t want the nomination to be wrapped up tonight. We benefit from more time with our candidates in the limelight.

I hope the media will now start asking Obama more tough questions, because I’d be a lot more comfortable with him as the nominee if he gets plenty of media scrutiny in the next month or two.

More debates will help our candidates sharpen their messages as well.

All in all, a good night to be a Democrat.