Republican Libby Jacobs is retiring from the Iowa House this year, and Dr. Alan Koslow is the Democratic candidate to replace her in House district 60, which encompasses most of West Des Moines. The Republican candidate for that seat is Peter Cownie.

I ran into Dr. Koslow at an event on Sunday, and he gave me the postcard-sized case for his candidacy that he has been handing out at farmers’ markets and other public events. Both sides have small photos of Koslow, along with the following text (the words in bold are in purple ink on the cards). The front side of the card reads:

IS THERE A DOCTOR IN THE HOUSE?

NO–BUT THERE SHOULD BE!

Dr. Alan

KOSLOW

Democrat for State Representative

www.KoslowForIowasHealth.com

HEALTH CARE is the most urgent issue facing Iowans. Who is more qualified to help craft that policy?

[empty box] a mouthpiece for special interests

[checked box] a board-certified vascular surgeon who understands this crucial issue inside and out

DR. ALAN KOSLOW has outlined detailed plans that will:

-cover all Iowans with affordable comprehensive health insurance at no cost to taxpayers

-work toward a dignified lifestyle and retirement for every Iowan

-set the pace for sustainable growth

The back side of the postcard reads:

DR. ALAN KOSLOW is

a progressive realist

who believes in

politics by partnership,

not partisanship.

In addition to being a board-certified vascular surgeon, DR. ALAN KOSLOW has worked hard for Iowans:

-Proposed the initial draft of the Healthy Kids legislation

-Conceived of the Farm to School legislation

-Served on Governor’s Task Force for Early Childhood Care

Working together, we can make Iowa healthy, green, and clean.

VOTE NOVEMBER 4

DR. ALAN KOSLOW

FOR STATE REPRESENTATIVE

www.KoslowForIowasHealth.com

I encourage you to check out Koslow’s website and support his campaign with a donation or some volunteer time if you are able to do so. Many suburban precincts that used to be solid Republican are trending more Democratic with each election cycle. Also, I suspect that Barack Obama will have significant coattails in West Des Moines, where he convincingly won most of the precincts in the Iowa caucuses.

UPDATE: The Des Moines Register discussed the race for House district 60 here. The district leans Republican, and Democrats have not fielded a candidate against Libby Jacobs since 1994.

Excerpt from the Register’s sidebar on Alan Koslow:

CAMPAIGN CONTACT INFO: 2716 Jordan Grove, West Des Moines, IA 50265; (515) 267-1821; www.koslowforiowas health.com, koslow@koslow foriowashealth.com

COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT: Served on more than 30 local boards and committees, including for the Blank Park Zoo, Civic Music Association, Art Center of Greater Des Moines and Tifereth Israel Synagogue. Participated in medical rescue missions to El Salvador and Israel. Served as president or chairman of Central Iowa chapter of the American Diabetes Association, 2006-2008, and the Iowa Chapter of the March of Dimes, 1999-2002.

CANDIDATE PRIORITIES: Health insurance for Iowa’s uninsured; clean up Iowa’s groundwater by eliminating hog-lot pollution; dignity for seniors, including eliminating elder abuse in assisted-care facilities and making it financially easier for seniors to live in Iowa with respect; creating an atmosphere to keep our young people in Iowa.

[…]

Q: The District 60 seat hasn’t been contested often in the last few decades. Why do you think there are so many candidates this time?

A: Like millions of other Americans, Iowans are hungry for a change in a politics. This is why so many people turned out for the caucuses last winter. We demand real solutions to real challenges. We demand an end to government by “gotcha.” We demand public servants who put aside party differences and dogma to work for a common good. We demand an end to the divisive wedge issues that sap our will to address real challenges that demand clear-cut, workable solutions.

Q: What unique perspective would you bring to the Legislature?

A: As I mentioned, my campaign slogan is, “Is there a doctor in the House?” There is not. Besides health care for the uninsured, the General Assembly will be debating many bills in the next session that will impact Iowans’ health. While there are many well-qualified Iowa House members to debate some of these issues, only a physician can provide the unique firsthand combined knowledge of treatment, preventive care, prescription drugs, the insurance system and many other factors.

Q: What are the biggest issues that Iowans face right now?

A: Health insurance for Iowa’s uninsured; clean up Iowa’s groundwater by eliminating hog-lot pollution; dignity for seniors, including eliminating elder abuse in assisted-care facilities and making it financially easier for seniors to live in Iowa with respect; creating an atmosphere to keep our young people in Iowa.

cross-posted around the blogosphere

On Saturday a fundraising solicitation arrived in the mail from Iowa Senator Tom Harkin. It asked me to confirm delivery of the enclosed “supporter card” within ten days, and also to “help keep my 2008 re-election campaign on the road to victory” with a special contribution.

Funny, I wasn’t aware that Harkin needed any extra help. Everyone in the election forecasting business has labeled this seat safe for him. The available polling shows Harkin with a comfortable lead.

According to Open Secrets, Harkin had $4.1 million cash on hand at the end of the second quarter. His little-known Republican opponent, Christopher Reed, has raised a total of $11,765 for his Senate campaign and had $292 (two hundred and ninety-two dollars) on hand as of June 30.

Harkin’s letter got me thinking that we need a “Use It Or Lose It” campaign for 2008.

Join me after the jump for more.

Either Barack Obama or John McCain may pick a running mate this week, before the Olympics start.

I haven’t heard much buzz lately about McCain’s choice. My money’s still on Mitt Romney, who has a relatively coherent message on economic policy (for a Republican) and can raise a lot of cash.

Word is that Hillary Clinton will address the Democratic National Convention in Denver on the Tuesday night. Since Obama’s running mate is expected to speak on Wednesday night, it seems that Hillary is not under serious consideration for VP.

Matt Stoller is still pushing for Wes Clark, and he and other bloggers have started a draft Clark for VP site, but I see no evidence that Clark is even being vetted by Obama’s team. They seem to want to avoid picking someone who will be seen as “balancing” any weakness in Obama’s resume.

Todd Beeton suspects the Obama team has decided the running mate should have some Washington experience, and he made a fascinating observation at MyDD:

My gut tells me a couple of things. First of all, Barack is not going to pick someone who needs to be introduced to the country. He has enough of an uphill climb introducing himself to the nation, is he really going to pick another unknown quantity for the ticket? So that leaves us with a different list, which, let’s say for argument, looks like this: Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Wesley Clark, Joe Biden, Bill Richardson, Chris Dodd, Sam Nunn.

Among these possible picks, some are known thanks to their extensive Washington, DC resumes (Clinton, Biden, Nunn, Dodd), some are not (Clark, Edwards, Richardson.) So, which list will Obama pick from? You’ll recall that in the primary, Barack ran against Washington experience and turned what Hillary thought would be her top selling point into an albatross around her neck with one very effective line: “are we just going to keep sending the same people to Washington and expect a different result?” In other words, if you’ve spent a lot of time in DC then how can you expect to change it? He could and should be using the same line against McCain, but he’s not. The other day I noticed him almost say it at one of his townhalls, but he caught himself. Why? My gut is that he’s leaning toward picking a Washington insider for his VP. My guess is it’s Biden.

Biden wouldn’t be my first choice for VP, but he would be a good fit for Obama in many ways. He’s a strong campaigner and could be an effective attack dog. Also, I think he would help Obama with the over-60 voters, where he is relatively weak.

Then again, First Read reports that the press team following Obama will spend 21 hours in South Bend, Indiana from Tuesday evening to Wednesday afternoon. They suspect that Obama might select Indiana Senator Evan Bayh as his running mate there.

Like Biden, Bayh is a Washington insider, but he’s also a former governor of a red state. He endorsed Hillary Clinton for president, so that might be a gesture toward uniting the party.

Then again, Obama may just be planning to hold a few campaign events in Indiana because that state could be competitive this year.

Bayh is way too conservative for my taste; for instance, he voted for Bush’s tax cuts in 2001. More worrying, we would likely lose his Senate seat if he became vice president, unless Jill Long Thompson pulls off an upset in the Indiana gubernatorial race this year. If Obama wants a Washington insider, I’d prefer Biden.

Many people still expect Obama to choose a different red state governor, either Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas or Tim Kaine of Virginia.

For whatever reason, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson doesn’t seem to be on Obama’s short list. That’s too bad, because I like him a lot more than Kaine, and I think he brings more to the table than Sebelius.

Life has to be a little discouraging for Christopher Reed, the Republican candidate for U.S. Senate in Iowa. Everyone in the election forecasting business has labeled this seat safe for Tom Harkin. The available polling shows Harkin with a comfortable lead.

According to Open Secrets, Harkin has raised more than $8 million since he was last re-elected to the Senate. The incumbent had $4.1 million cash on hand as of June 30.

In contrast, Reed has raised a total of $11,765 for his Senate campaign and had $292 on hand as of June 30.

But look on the bright side: Cityview went through Reed’s FEC filings and found that the Republican has used about $600 in campaign funds to buy new clothes. Also, he’s had several haircuts on the campaign’s dime this year.

Presumably Reed ran for Senate to build his name recognition among Iowa Republicans for future races. But even if he never runs for office again, he’ll have a few suits, shirts and ties to show for his trouble.

OK, I admit to being creeped out when the Obama campaign website put a white glow around the candidate and the states that voted for him in the primaries.

But this new ad from John McCain is ridiculous:

I’m a little surprised this ad didn’t quote Oprah, who really did call Obama “the one.”

It’s not clear whether this ad is running anywhere on television or just on the web for now. They may be banking on getting news and analysis programs to run it for free.

Note that this comes directly from the McCain campaign and not from the Republican National Committee or some 527 group. Normally the presidential campaign runs positive commercials, while outside groups do the dirty work.

They have realized that McCain is a poor candidate, so they need to focus all their resources on shoring up the conservative base and making Obama unacceptable to the swing voters.

The Daily Show did a great segment on this “Obama is arrogant” meme last night and how absurd it is, given how McCain makes all kinds of grandiose statements and promises on the campaign trail. Watch the clip here, or catch the rerun of the Daily Show on Monday.

Following up on my earlier post on the best way to combat John McCain’s demagoguery, the Sierra Club put out a great release today:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: August 1, 2008

Contact: Kristina Johnson, 415.977.5619

            Josh Dorner, 202.675.2384

                         Oops, He Did It Again!

                  McCain Prefers Own Rhetoric to Facts,

                   Actual Experts on Offshore Drilling

Washington, D.C.–In Florida today, Senator John McCain said he was

convinced offshore drilling would yield immediate oil-despite hard data to

the contrary from experts like the federal government’s Energy Information

Administration.

According to the EIA, it would take 7-10 years for oil to come online from

new drilling, and twenty years to reach peak production. And, as the New

York Times recently noted, because of a recent shortage in drilling

equipment, it could likely take even longer.

But McCain said:

“…So I disagree with those experts and I’ve talked to the actual people

that do the work, that are in the business that say within months and

certainly within a very short time, we could have additional oil supply for

this nation. So we ought to drill now.” (Video HERE)

        Statement of Sierra Club Political Director Cathy Duvall

“Senator McCain may ‘disagree with the experts,’ but that doesn’t make the

facts go away. New offshore drilling simply won’t provide any oil for

roughly a decade. And even then, the Bush administration itself admits that

drilling will do absolutely nothing to lower gas prices today, tomorrow, or

even two decades from now.

“Oil companies aren’t interested in lowering gas prices. Keeping supply

tight and oil prices high keeps Big Oil rolling in record profits. The oil

companies are spending almost ten times more-a full 55 percent of their

record profits-on stock buybacks and dividends than they are on

exploration.  This drives up the price of their shares, their profits, and

the paychecks of their executives.

“This episode is eerily reminiscent of Senator McCain’s insistence that his

misguided ‘gas tax holiday’ would benefit consumers and not simply add to

Big Oil’s record profits.  McCain and his aides continue to insist that the

230 leading economists — including 4 Nobel Prize winners — who denounced

his plan are simply wrong.

“We’re in an energy crisis.  Americans do need short-term help to offset

the cost of gas, and Senator Obama has a plan to give it to them. He has

proposed a $1,000 refund check paid for by taxing Big Oil’s record profits

that would offer us immediate relief. That’s something new drilling won’t

do, no matter what John McCain says.”

                                  # # #

I like this better than the MoveOn “gimmick” ad (which you can view in the earlier post). In addition to pointing out why McCain is wrong on this issue, it links his proposal to what big oil companies want and profit from. Also, the Sierra Club statement has a healthy dose of ridicule, which McCain deserves.

All that’s missing is a line about how we don’t need a third term of a presidency in the pocket of Big Oil. I’m with Dansac on the need to repeat “McCain is Bush’s third term” as often as possible.

Meanwhile, Obama took several steps in the right direction at a town hall meeting in Florida today. He is calling for a $1,000 tax rebate for low and middle-income families. A windfall profits tax on oil companies would pay for the rebates.

The Illinois senator also revamped his proposal for a $50 billion economic stimulus plan to include $25 billion to replenish the highway trust fund and pay for infrastructure improvements that he said could save up to 1 million endangered jobs.

“With job losses mounting, prices rising, increased turbulence in our financial system, a growing credit crunch, we need to do more,” Obama said at a town hall meeting in St. Petersburg, Florida.

The proposals came as the government announced the U.S. unemployment rate hit its highest level in four years with another 51,000 non-farm jobs lost in July, bringing job losses for the year to 463,000.

“Do you think you can afford another four years of the same failed economic policies?” Obama asked, accusing McCain of embracing President George W. Bush’s economic approach.

Let McCain explain why he and the Republican Party refuse to consider a windfall tax on oil companies that are reporting record profits this year.

Just in from Becky Greenwald’s campaign:

On Saturday, August 2nd, Becky Greenwald and Senator Tom Harkin will be meeting with volunteers in Ames to thank them for their work to make a difference in the 4th District. The event will be at the Story County Democrats and Obama Campaign for Change office at 3:30 pm. Senator Harkin and Becky Greenwald will be available for interviews.

WHO: Becky Greenwald, Candidate for Congress in the 4th District, Senator Tom Harkin, Volunteers

WHAT: Meet and Greet with Volunteers and Media Availability

WHERE: Office of Story County Democrats and Obama Campaign for Change

303 Welch Ave.

Ames, IA

WHEN: Saturday, August 2nd at 3:30 pm.

If anyone out there is able to attend, please post a diary afterward to tell us about it.

On August 4th and 5th, Greenwald will hold public events in Indianola, Ames, Waukee, Mason City, Iowa Falls and Fort Dodge. I’ll post more details on those events when I have them. (UPDATE: The Waukee event will be from 5:00 to 7:00 pm on Monday, August 4 in the parking lot outside the Becky Greenwald and Obama Campaign for Change Dallas County Office, 144 E. Laurel St.)

She clearly understands that Latham’s weakness is his near-total loyalty to George Bush and the Republican Party agenda:

“I am running for Congress because we need an independent thinker in Washington who will get to work to make a difference for Iowans,” said Becky Greenwald. “For too long, Tom Latham has been a wingman for George Bush and hasn’t been listening to us. I will go to Washington, roll up my sleeves, and work across the aisle to get things done for the people of the 4th District.”

Latham must be held accountable for marching in lockstep with the unpopular GOP leadership in Congress.

John McCain has been blaming Barack Obama for high gas prices because Obama opposes more offshore oil drilling. Here’s the response from MoveOn.org:

It’s a simple message: we expected more from McCain than misleading gimmicks.

The Obama campaign has taken this approach a step further by launching a new website: lowroadexpress.com. You can watch Obama’s tv commercial that portrays McCain as practicing the politics of the past and clinging to failed policies. You can read newspaper editorials criticizing McCain’s tactics. The main message of the site is this:

Welcome to the Low Road Express.

John McCain used to stand for “straight talk.” Not anymore.

These days John McCain doesn’t seem to stand for anything but negative attacks and false charges against Barack Obama. This isn’t the John McCain we used to know.

I see the point of hitting McCain on his supposed strength as a straight talker, and I see the point of working the refs in the media by calling out McCain for his negative campaigning.

However, I wonder whether going after McCain’s campaign tactics should be the main thrust of the Democratic response.

I agree with David Mizner, who wrote yesterday, “Good populist rhetoric, and linking McCain to corporate greed, is the way to beat not only McCain’s drilling nonsense, but the Brittany-Spears smear campaign.”

Mizner linked to a great statement from the Obama campaign regarding the record quarterly profit reported by Exxon Mobil:

Perhaps the only thing more outrageous than Exxon Mobil making record profits while Americans are paying record prices at the pump is the fact that Senator McCain has proposed giving them an additional $1.2 billion tax break. While Senator McCain’s plan has succeeded in helping his campaign raise over $1 million from oil and gas company executives and employees just last month, it won’t lower gas prices or end our dangerous dependence on foreign oil. Instead of an energy policy that reads like an oil-company wish list, it’s time to create a new American energy economy by investing in alternative energy, creating millions of new jobs, increasing fuel efficiency standards, and ending the tyranny of oil once and for all.

Now the focus is on McCain as a typical corrupt Republican who takes money from corporate executives and supports big tax breaks for profitable companies.

That seems more damaging than saying he runs mean television commercials.

You might think, of course desmoinesdem wants Obama to talk more about Republicans being bought and paid for by powerful corporations–she was an Edwards supporter!

Well, longtime Obama backer Dansac is concerned that McCain’s attack ads are working and would like to see Obama go on offense:

Get scrappy Obama, no more worrying about “looking Presidential.”  The high road is for suckers and we thought you knew this.  Winning is really quite simple:

“John McCain is Bush’s 3rd Term” and “John McCain is Completely Out of Touch and Knows Nothing about the Economy”

Repeat it over and over.  Not just Obama, but a coordinated surrogate strategy with really tough talking points.  Call his ads “pathetic” and what you’d expect from someone “who has nothing to offer but a 3rd Bush term and knows nothing about the economy.”

Frame HIM instead of allowing yourself to be framed.  Because don’t be fooled Obama folks or Kossacks, that’s what’s starting to happen.  

Victory may still be ours, but a landslide is increasingly unlikely and victory will be tougher to achieve.  We have a very small window, a VERY small window to start pushing back aggressively.  And accusing McCain of taking the “low road” won’t do it.  We need to get in the muck and define him.

Offense.  It’s what’s for dinner.

About that window: the election is less than 100 days away, and fladem has persuasively argued that most recent presidential elections have been won or lost in the summer, not the fall.

What do you think is the right approach for Obama? Chiding McCain for using the politics of the past? Accusing McCain of doing the oil companies’ bidding? Branding McCain as Bush’s third term?

Very clever. An e-mail from the Polk County Democrats informs me that the Obama campaign will be sending out the vice-presidential selection by text message.

To “hear the historic news wherever you are,” just text IOWA to 62262. Then you’ll receive updates from the Obama campaign in Iowa on your cell phone.

I don’t text message, but I imagine a huge number of people will be signing up for these updates.

Speaking of cell phones, the Obama campaign will have the biggest phone bank ever at Invesco Field at Mile High Stadium. About 75,000 people are expected to attend Obama’s speech the night he will accept the Democratic nomination, and the campaign will ask them to call unregistered voters.

And speaking of crowds, the Des Moines Register’s website has the video from Obama’s town hall in Cedar Rapids today. I only caught a small fragment, but I liked what he said about how parents need to turn off the television and unplug the video games.

In part of the town hall that I did not see, Obama went after John McCain on energy policy:

“Under my opponent’s plan, the oil companies get billions more and we stay in the same cycle of addiction and dependence on big oil that got us into this crisis in the first place,” Obama told an audience of about 1,000 at Coe College in Cedar Rapids. “That’s a risk that we just can’t afford to take.”

Obama was referring to McCain’s support for a gas-tax holiday and expanding the areas where oil companies can drill. Obama says a tax holiday would pad oil company profits and that they already have access to areas where they are not drilling.

[…]

“It won’t drop prices in this administration, the next administration or the administration after that,” he said. “Although it won’t save you dollars at the pump, I will say it has raised campaign dollars.”

Obama said McCain raised $1 million from oil company executives at a fundraiser in Houston last month.

Democrats better have a good answer on oil drilling, because not only is McCain blaming Obama for high gas prices in some of his campaign ads, down-ticket Republicans like Tom Latham will also use this issue against their opponents.

I corrected this post to note that this fundraising drive is for Barack Obama’s campaign, not the DNC. But you should give to the DNC as well!

Barack Obama is going to accept the Democratic nomination for president at Mile High Stadium in Denver in front of an estimated 75,000 people.

Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean sent out an e-mail today asking for donations to the DNC the Obama campaign, with an extra incentive backing up his fundraising pitch.

If you make a donation before midnight tomorrow, you could be part of a very special opportunity. Ten supporters who give before the July fundraising deadline will be selected for an all-expenses-paid trip to Denver. You’ll get to bring a guest, fly to Denver, spend a couple days at the convention, and meet Barack before his speech.

Donate today, and you could go Backstage with Barack:

Make a donation before the deadline

https://donate.barackobama.com…

The full text of Dean’s e-mail is after the jump.

Remember that the Republican National Committee has been raising more money this year than the DNC and will be spending it on behalf of John McCain. It’s not enough for the Obama campaign to raise money–the DNC also has to be competitive in fundraising.

Chris Bowers thinks so:

If you want to help keep this ad on the air, donate to VoteVets.org.

The same group is pushing back on a John McCain ad that

disingenuously claimed that Barack Obama had “canceled a visit with wounded troops” because “the Pentagon wouldn’t allow him to bring cameras.”  By Sunday, even Republicans were panning the ad as being inappropriate.

Speaking of VoteVets, the group is now getting involved in state and local races for the first time. Iowa’s own Representative McKinley Bailey (House district 9) is one of 14 “emerging leaders” to receive VoteVets’ backing.

As noneed4thneed reported earlier this year, Bailey was one of the Democratic state legislators targeted in corporate-funded radio and tv ads.

In general, I am a huge advocate of getting involved in state legislative races. Congratulations to Representative Bailey, and thanks to VoteVets for helping us hold this seat, one that Iowa Republicans are targeting.

Iowa Politics has this press release from Representative Tom Latham’s campaign about

a statewide radio ad highlighting Latham’s work to lower gas and energy prices for Iowa families.

The sixty second ad reinforces Latham’s continued commitment to renewable energy but also discusses the need for Congress to work immediately to increase domestic energy supplies that America controls.

“$4.00 a gallon gas hurts Iowa families,” notes Latham in the ad. “And they’re frustrated with leaders in Congress for not doing more about it – and they have every right to be.”

“I have always been, and will continue to be, a strong supporter of alternative energy research and production, but we need to work for solutions that get Iowans from point A to point B without busting their family budget.”

Latham has been working in Congress on legislation aimed at increasing our domestic supply of affordable that will lower gas and energy prices through the increased use of our current resources, to include off-shore drilling and drilling in ANWR.

Latham recently told Iowa Independent that Republicans can ride high gas prices to victory this November. It’s not clear to me why this is a big selling point for the GOP–shouldn’t they have been doing something to reduce our dependence on foreign oil during the years Republicans controlled Congress as well as the presidency?

Anyway, some Republicans clearly believe that this issue will save them from an otherwise hostile political environment. Last week John McCain started running a television ad blaming Barack Obama for high gas prices because Obama opposes more offshore oil drilling.

The rapid response from Becky Greenwald’s campaign points out the various misleading aspects of Latham’s radio ad:

For Immediate Release                                                                      Contact: Erin Seidler

July 29, 2008                                                                                                         515-537-4465

Latham Runs Misleading Ad on Drilling To Divert From Votes Against Immediate Gas Price Relief

Waukee, IA – This week, Tom Latham’s campaign released a radio ad misleading voters about offshore drilling. Experts agree that offshore drilling will do nothing to lower gas prices for seven to ten years, and its clear that this ad is a diversion from Latham’s votes against opening the Strategic Petroleum Reserves and forcing oil companies to drill on existing leases. (McClatchy, 6/18/08)

“I’m running for Congress because of these sort of shenanigans. Latham is trying to get Iowans to think about leasing 2,000 more acres when 68 million acres already leased are open, untapped and will lower prices. Latham is trying to divert attention from his failure to support immediate relief through opening the Strategic Petroleum Reserves and forcing oil companies to drill on existing leases,” said Becky Greenwald, Candidate for Congress in Iowa’s 4th District. “Is it too much to ask for leaders to be honest with us?”

Unfortunately, Latham, like George Bush decided to play politics with gas prices. Last week, he voted against a bill that would release 70 million barrels of oil from the strategic oil reserve to bring relief from high gas prices. This bill would bring almost immediate relief to high gas prices. (H. Res. 6578)

And two weeks ago, Latham voted against a bill to force oil companies to drill on existing leases. There are 68 million acres of federal land already leased by oil companies. That is two times the size of the state of Iowa available for energy production that is now sitting idle. (H.R. 615)

Instead, Democrats in Congress and Becky Greenwald are fighting for a comprehensive energy policy that includes in the short term, opening the Strategic Petroleum Reserves and forcing oil companies to drill on almost 68 million acres of existing leases.

In the long term, Becky will fight to invest in a green energy industry here in Iowa by investing in ethanol, wind energy, biodiesel, and other homegrown, alternative forms of energy.

“I know that investing in renewable fuels will reduce our reliance on foreign oil and bring down gas prices and create thousands if not hundreds of thousands of jobs in rural America, including Iowa’s 4th District,” Greenwald continued. “It’s time for a solution, not diversion tactics.”

The bolded passages were bold in the original, by the way.

Latham’s advocacy of more oil drilling will do nothing to solve our energy problems. Even the president of the Teamsters Union, which has long supported increased oil drilling in the U.S., declared last week that

“We must find a long-term approach that breaks our dependence on foreign oil by investing in the development of alternate energy sources like solar, wind and geothermal power.”

Furthermore, public opinion on this matter may not be where Latham thinks it is. The polling firm Rasmussen says the public is divided on whether more drilling is the answer:

A new Rasmussen Reports national survey, taken last night (Monday), finds that 45% think placing more restrictions on energy speculators is more important , while 42% take the opposite view that allowing offshore oil drilling is more important.

A major partisan divide on the issue, like the split in Congress, is evident, however. Sixty-seven percent (67%) of Republicans say lifting the ban is the highest priority, while 59% of Democrats – and 48% of unaffiliated voters — say controlling speculators is more important. Only 29% of unaffiliateds say lift the ban first.

Unaffiliated or “no-party” voters have a slim plurality among registered voters in Iowa’s fourth district, and there are about 8,000 more Democrats than Republicans in the district.

If Rasmussen’s findings are accurate, it seems that Latham is out of step with his district.

If you reject Latham’s misleading spin on energy policy, please donate to Greenwald’s campaign to help her respond on the air. This race will be very competitive if she can raise enough money to get her message out. Remember, the fourth district has a partisan index of D+0, meaning that its vote in 2004 closely matched the nationwide partisan split.

Final note: Latham’s press release says the radio ad is running statewide. That’s a lot more expensive than just running the ad in fourth district markets.

Is he trying to raise his profile outside his district to pave the way for a gubernatorial bid in 2010? If he loses to Greenwald, he could start campaigning for governor immediately. But even if he wins re-election, serving in Congress isn’t much fun when you’re in the minority party.  

Douglas Burns has the story at Iowa Independent: Joe Trippi’s consulting firm will be raising money and crafting media messages for Rob Hubler, the Democratic candidate running against Congressman Steve King.

The fifth district is the most Republican in Iowa, but by no means is it out of reach for Hubler.

Big upsets happen in big landslide years, and that’s what this year is shaping up to be.

Hiring Trippi will help Hubler put this race on the map for Washington, D.C.-based groups that could help defeat King, who is reviled by many progressives.

UPDATE: Don’t miss 2laneIA’s diary on this development at Daily Kos.

I’ve added a press release from the Hubler campaign after the jump.

On the one hand, pollster.com’s electoral vote projection, along with Karl Rove’s latest electoral vote projection, show Barack Obama with a huge advantage over John McCain.

Chris Bowers also sees Obama heavily favored to win the presidency, since McCain would need to win every single tossup state to get to 270 electoral votes.

On the other hand, Obama supporter poblano/Nate Silver’s electoral vote projection is much less favorable than pollster.com’s and shows McCain gaining some ground in recent weeks.

Matt Stoller wonders why national polls are basically static even though journalists covering both campaigns agree that “McCain’s campaign is widely considered to be a disaster and Obama’s is considered to be excellent if a bit cold.”

Stoller is also concerned about low funding levels for outside progressive groups, which means that “There is no cavalry in case Obama stumbles and there are no groups that can go negative against McCain.”

Paul Rosenberg notes that “the overall Obama vs. McCain numbers are far behind the generic Dem vs. Rep numbers, which means that overall Obama is not leading the charge, he’s surfing the wave.”

But Open Left commenter NR is sick of hearing complaints that Obama should be further ahead:

Obama is a black man with a funny name who just got out of the most bruising primary we’ve seen in decades, running against a popular war hero who’s worshiped by the media. Frankly, it’s a miracle that he has even a slim lead at this point.

If you’re one of those people who thinks everything happening now is irrelevant, because voters won’t start paying attention until after Labor Day, I encourage you to read this piece by fladem on how polling numbers from July related to presidential election outcomes in past years. He concludes, “most Presidential races are decided in the summer, not the fall.”

How do you see the race shaping up? I am cautiously optimistic, in that I see several plausible scenarios for Obama getting to 270 electoral votes without Ohio or Florida.

Also, a Pew Research Center poll shows Obama leading McCain among Latinos by an impressive margin.

UPDATE: Jonathan Singer notes that the Pew poll is not an outlier; other polling this summer also indicates that Obama crushes McCain among Latinos.

I’ve written before that I think it would be a huge mistake for Barack Obama to select any Republican for a running mate. The next president will appoint at least two and perhaps four Supreme Court justices. Obama is a longtime smoker with a family history of cancer. I don’t want any Republican in line to inherit the presidency.

And I’ve written that I think it would backfire for him to choose a woman other than Hillary Clinton for vice president. Not that I have anything against Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius (I would give her serious consideration if she ran for president someday). But I agree with a MyDD commenter who wrote that for Obama to pick Sebelius or Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill would be like Hillary picking Harold Ford as a running mate if she had won the nomination.

I’ve also said I would hate to see Obama choose a corporate-friendly vice president. I already worry that as president he would do too little to rein in the excesses of corporate power in Washington.

Now Politico reports that Obama’s vetting team is floating the name of Ann Veneman, who was Agriculture Secretary during George W. Bush’s first term, with members of Congress. That would be the worst kind of trifecta in my mind.

I can’t understand what Veneman could possibly have going for her. She’s executive director of UNICEF, but who cares? When she was in the cabinet, she didn’t promote sustainable agriculture or sensible health protections.

As the Organic Consumers Association reported when Bush appointed her, Veneman had a long history of standing with corporate interests. When she left Bush’s cabinet, her “vision and commitment” won praise from the American Meat Institute. Politico notes:

The low-profile Republican was close to food and agriculture industries but clashed with farm-state Democrats and environmentalists during her tenure, which lasted from 2001 to 2004.

Maybe Veneman is being mentioned to throw journalists off the scent, or to trick progressives into feeling relieved if Obama chooses a corporate Democrat who’s not “that bad.”

It bothers me that Obama would even allow his team to consider someone like Veneman, even as a diversion. I want the next administration to make CAFOs pay for the harm they cause.

UPDATE: The Nation explains why Veneman would be “a uniquely awful choice” for Obama.

When I suggested yesterday that Steve King is not an effective representative of his constituents in the fifth district, I failed to consider that from time to time he holds telephone town-hall meetings.

SW Iowa Guy suffered through one of those on Tuesday and provides a humorous account of the experience. Callers were screened so that King was able to field only friendly questions during an hour or so on the line.

One passage in Iowa Guy’s post jumped out at me:

Health Care: King stated that he opposes universal access to health care. He advocates Health Savings Accounts and said that families can deposit over $5,000.00 per year to such an account and by the time they are ready to retire they will have over one million dollars. This is all well and good, but most working families can ill afford the necessities, let alone save for health care. This also fails to address the unemployed and under-employed and uninsured.

Do Republicans expect Americans to buy into this Health Savings Account concept? If my husband and I had donated the maximum amount to those accounts for several years, we would still be in the hole without our health insurance (and we are reasonably healthy people).

A typical, complication-free pregnancy with no medical interventions in the hospital cost us around $3,500 each time for prenatal care and delivery, plus about $5,000 each time for the normal hospital stay of less than 48 hours. If I had given birth to either of my children by cesarean section, the hospital bills would have been in the $10,000 to $20,000 range, even without any complications such as baby spending time in the neonatal intensive care unit.

I had a flukey infection this winter that sent me to the hospital for a week and ended up costing somewhere between $20,000 and $30,000 (considering not just the hospital stay, but also the various tests and procedures). That would wipe out years of deposits in a Health Savings Account if we had to rely on one of those instead of health insurance.

If anyone in our family ever got a really expensive illness to treat, such as cancer, you can forget about any private savings account covering the cost.

It’s not realistic to think that families will be able to build up Health Savings Accounts worth a million dollars by the time they retire. Only a small fraction of Americans could afford to do that, and even then they’d have to be lucky and stay healthy in the meantime.

As Iowa Guy notes, a single-payer system modeled on Medicare makes a lot more sense.

Calling all volunteers: if you’ve got a few hours to spare this weekend, the Obama campaign would love to have you participate in one of the 26 neighborhood canvasses they have planned.

Go here to RSVP.

Most of the door-knocking will be on Sunday afternoon, but a few places will do it on Saturday morning or afternoon.

Here are the places and times where canvassing will happen. I have added the county name next to the city or town:

Ames Canvass (Story County)

Sunday 1 pm

Fort Dodge Canvass (Webster County)

Sunday 12 pm

New Hampton Canvass (Chickasaw County)

Sunday 1 pm

Anamosa Canvass (Jones County)

Sunday 2 pm

Fort Madison Canvass (Lee County)

Sunday 1 pm

Newton Canvass (Jasper County)

Sunday 10 am

Cedar Rapids Canvass (Linn County)

Sunday 12 pm

Guttenberg Canvass (Clayton County)

Sunday 1 pm

Ottumwa Canvass (Wapello County)

Sunday 12 pm

Clinton Canvass (Clinton County)

Sunday 2 pm

Indianola Canvass (Warren County)

Sunday 10 am (I haven’t heard of a Sunday morning canvass in Iowa–maybe you should double-check the time when you RSVP)

Sioux City Canvass (Woodbury County)

Sunday 12 pm

Council Bluffs Canvass (Pottawattamie County)

Sunday 12 pm

Iowa City Canvass (Johnson County)

Saturday 10 am

Waterloo Canvass (Black Hawk County)

Sunday 1 pm

Davenport Canvass (Scott County)

Sunday 12 pm

Iowa City Canvass (Johnson County)

Sunday 12 pm

Waukee Canvass (Dallas County)

Sunday 1 pm

Des Moines Canvass (Polk County)

Sunday 1 pm

Knoxville Canvass (Marion County)

Sunday 1 pm

Waverly Canvass (Bremer County)

Saturday 12 pm

Dubuque Canvass (Dubuque County)

Sunday 1 pm

Mason City Canvass (Cerro Gordo County)

Sunday 1 pm

West Des Moines Canvass (Polk County)

Sunday 1 pm

Winterset Canvass (Madison County)

Sunday 12 pm

Des Moines Canvass # 2 (Polk County)

Sunday 1 pm

If you click the link above to RSVP, you will get more details about where and when to meet up.

Please consider posting a diary here afterwards about your experience. Those are fun to read. You don’t have to include photos–you can just tell the story, like icebergslim did here and clarkent did here.

By the way, John McCain’s campaign website now lists contact information for five field offices in Iowa. It’s not clear from that page whether a sixth office will open in southeast Iowa at some point, or whether field operations for southeast Iowa will continue to be run out of the state headquarters in Urbandale, as they appear to be now.

I reported recently that the Obama campaign has 15 field offices open in Iowa, with two more planned in Cedar Rapids and Iowa Falls. I have since heard that there will also be an office opening in West Des Moines, so the total number of offices in this state will be at least 18.  

Campaigns against incumbents are never easy, but Iowa’s fourth Congressional district is very winnable for Becky Greenwald.

When you run for office, certain things are out of your control, like the nationwide political climate or the partisan makeup of the electorate.

Greenwald is fortunate to be challenging Representative Tom Latham this year, when Democrats have their first registration edge in the fourth district since it was redrawn. According to the June 2008 numbers released by the Secretary of State’s office, the fourth district has 128,482 registered Democrats, 120,694 registered Republicans, and 145,223 voters registered with no party affiliation. Also, the national political climate is favorable to Democrats. IA-04 has a partisan index of D+0, meaning that its vote in 2004 closely matched the nationwide partisan split.

Latham told Iowa Independent that Republicans can win this year’s elections by focusing on high gas prices and the Iraq War. However, the National Republican Congressional Committee, which exists to elect Republicans to the U.S. House, has given GOP incumbents very different advice: run on personal and local issues. An NRCC strategy document notes that Republican candidates who lost special Congressional elections this year did not establish “themselves and their local brand in contrast to the negative perception of the national GOP.”

If fourth district residents let national issues guide their votes down-ticket, Greenwald will do well to keep tying Latham to the Iraq War and leadership of the Republican Party.

So what’s standing in her way? The biggest advantage of incumbency is often money, and this race is no exception.

Charlotte Eby, a commentator for the Mason City Globe-Gazette, assessed this race in a recent column:

After the record-breaking turnout at the Iowa caucuses, the Democratic Party has amassed a voter registration advantage that has grown to more than 90,000 in Iowa.

Democrats also will have presidential candidate Barack Obama and U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin at the top of the ticket to help drive turnout. […]

Latham’s had strong Democratic challengers in the past that he’s been able to fend off. But his district, which includes Mason City, Ames and suburban counties surrounding Des Moines, has become more of a swing district as Democratic registration has swelled. Democrats now outnumber Republicans in the district for the first time ever.

Watch for Greenwald’s campaign to paint Latham as a Republican in lockstep with Bush administration policies, a record that might not be popular with the changing electorate.

First though, Greenwald will have to raise enough money to compete with Latham’s war chest, which sat at more than $700,000 as of the last filing period.

If Greenwald is competitive in raising money, the 4th District race could be the race to watch this fall.

David Yepsen’s latest column in the Des Moines Register reaches the same conclusion:

The key for Democrat Greenwald, a 55-year-old former Garst and Pioneer marketing executive from Perry, is money. Will national Democratic money sources – especially Emily’s List – pour dollars into her contest with Latham?

To get them to make that investment, Greenwald must first convince them she’s viable and has got a credible financial base of her own.

So far, it’s been an uphill task. According to the latest campaign-finance disclosure reports, Greenwald had only $81,800 in the bank on June 30. Latham had 10 times that amount: $832,388. Greenwald had to get through a four-way primary in June, then had to suspend fundraising in Iowa during the floods. Donors in the Democratic money centers of Des Moines, Iowa City and Cedar Rapids were preoccupied.

Raising money isn’t the easiest task in the world, but candidates have more control over fundraising than they do over massive shifts toward the other party on various issues and among many different demographic groups.

Rarely can a challenger raise enough cash to match the incumbent’s spending dollar for dollar. But when the wind is at your back, that often isn’t necessary.

Upsets happen in big landslide years. Just look at what happened to Neal Smith, who had represented Iowa’s fourth district since 1958 until Greg Ganske brought him down in the 1994 Republican landslide. Smith had more seniority and clout in 1994 than Latham has now. I couldn’t find information about the candidates’ spending in that race, because the Open Secrets database doesn’t go back that far. But I’ll bet that Ganske did not win by raising more money than Smith. Ganske was boosted by a national Republican wave and partisan shifts following the 1990 census and redistricting.

Greenwald has a big cash-on-hand disadvantage now, but her campaign has been working hard to raise money in July. I’ve received e-mails from personal friends asking me to donate, as well as two letters from the campaign (one signed by Tom Harkin, Leonard Boswell and Bruce Braley, the other signed by Tom and Christie Vilsack).

I’ve already given to her campaign, but my husband and I are digging deeper to donate again this month.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has not reserved any air time in Iowa yet, but they are watching this race, as is EMILY’s list, which seeks to elect pro-choice, Democratic women at all levels of government.

I expect one or both of those groups to get involved in the IA-04 race, assuming Greenwald produces strong numbers this month. The Des Moines and Mason City media markets are not that expensive, compared to districts where many other challengers need to purchase paid media.

The infrastructure will be there to support heavy Democratic turnout in this district. Barack Obama’s campaign has already opened four field offices in IA-04, with a fifth office planned.

Also, the fourth district has been receptive to strong Democratic candidates in recent years. Speaking to Iowa Independent two weeks ago, Greenwald made this point:

“This is not a campaign that was launched on a whim,” she said. “This is not just a campaign that’s based on hope that I’ll do well. Sen. Harkin won 28 of the 28 counties in the 4th District in 2002. The 4th District is the only district in Iowa in which he carried every single county. Gov. Culver, when he ran in 2006, carried 22 of the 28 counties in the 4th District.”

Please donate to Greenwald’s campaign before the end of July.

UPDATE: I didn’t realize Karl Rove was coming to Des Moines today to raise money for Latham. A press release from Greenwald’s campaign is after the jump. Also, you can view this YouTube she taped in response to Rove’s visit:

I love how Greenwald referred to Rove in this clip: “Today, Karl Rove, the man who is too busy to even testify before Congress, is going to be in Iowa raising money for Tom Latham.”

Haven’t had a chance to watch the speech, but I hear it was a great one. Meteor Blades says, “By This Foreign Policy Speech Will Future Ones Be Measured”:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyo…

Todd Beeton had the bizarre experience of listening to the speech with Rush Limbaugh adding snide remarks from time to time:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008…

What did you think?

William Meyers is obviously passionate about politics and willing to spend lots of time volunteering for political causes, which is commendable.

But I am hard-pressed to think of any activist who has applied himself in a more self-defeating and counter-productive way than Meyers. First he declared himself an independent candidate for Congress after losing the fourth district primary–a move I still think he will regret someday.

Now I learn from Iowa Independent that Meyers has launched a new website against Iowa’s smoking ban. I spent a little time on repealthesmokingban.org. The “leaders” page lists Meyers as the founder and online coordinator of Repealthesmokingban.org and former Republican State Senator George Eichhorn as the attorney representing bar and restaurant owners who are fighting the ban. (I don’t give that lawsuit much chance of succeeding.)

Not surprisingly, Meyers’ website disputes evidence of the harm caused by secondhand smoke. It also contains a page listing bars and restaurants all over the country that have closed, allegedly because of local smoking bans.

Guess what? Lots of restaurants and bars go out of business, whether or not they permit smoking. If I’m not mistaken, 50 percent of restaurants fail during their first year of operation. Competition is fierce, and food and transportation costs are rising while the public’s disposable income is dropping.

But there is simply no credible evidence that smoking bans are bad for business. On the contrary, research supports the opposite conclusion.

Meyers’ new website has a page seeking to recruit volunteers in every Iowa county. Repealthesmokingban.org has also grouped counties into 11 clusters and is seeking a district coordinator in each.

If people want to lobby legislators to repeal the smoking ban, it’s a free country. I don’t object to people organizing toward that end, even if I think Meyers is wrong on this issue.

What really bothers me about the website is the page listing the “nannies” (Chet Culver and all the legislators who supported the smoking ban):

CONTACT THEM AND DEMAND REPEAL! – REMEMBER THEM ON VOTING DAY!

The Nannies….anyone who thinks they should be able to tell other adults how to live. The militantly anti-anything-else-they-see-someone-else-enjoying.

Never mind the nonsensical spin about people being “militantly anti-anything-else-they-see-someone-else-enjoying.” No one is trying to deprive Meyers or anyone else the pleasure of smoking in the privacy of his own home. But your right to enjoy a cigarette doesn’t give you the right to jeopardize someone else’e health.

This website goes way beyond lobbying legislators to repeal the smoking ban. By asking voters to “remember” the “nannies” on election day, Meyers is in effect urging Iowans to vote Democrats out of their legislative majority.

Here’s a link to the roll call votes in the Iowa House and Senate on the final version of the smoking ban bill.

In the House, 45 Democrats and nine Republicans voted yes.

In the Senate, 25 Democrats and one Republican voted yes.

As if Meyers hasn’t done enough damage to his political future by refusing to accept the outcome of the fourth district primary, he is now mobilizing angry smokers to cast their votes based on that one issue.

I find it interesting that Meyers supported Barack Obama’s campaign in Iowa. I wonder if he heard what Obama said at a presidential debate last September when asked whether he would support a national law to ban smoking in public places:

I think that local communities are making enormous strides, and I think they’re doing the right thing on this. If it turns out that we’re not seeing enough progress at the local level, then I would favor a national law. I don’t think we’ve seen the local laws play themselves out entirely, because I think you’re seeing an enormous amount of progress in Chicago, in New York, in other major cities around the country. And because I think we have been treating this as a public health problem and educating the public on the dangers of secondhand smoke, that that pressure will continue. As I said, if we can’t provide these kinds of protections at the local level, which would be my preference, I would be supportive of a national law.

Oh, no! Obama thinks that communities are “doing the right thing” to ban smoking in public, but he would support a federal law on the issue if the local ordinances are not adequately protecting Americans against secondhand smoke.

Attention, field organizers for Obama: don’t give William Meyers any numbers to call or doors to knock this fall. For all we know, he’ll go around telling people not to vote for the “nanny.”

MoveOn Political Action is giving away Vote Obama 2008 buttons:

Dear MoveOn member,

We’re giving away new Obama buttons for free, as part of a massive national visibility campaign. Want one? Click here:

http://pol.moveon.org/obamabut…

After you’ve gotten yours, forward this email on to everyone you know so that they can get free Obama buttons too.

If hundreds of thousands of us wear these wherever we go, we’ll send a strong message that Barack Obama is the candidate with the buzz, momentum, excitement-and sincere support of regular folks across the country.

Thanks for all you do.

-Peter, Patrick S., Laura, Matt and the rest of the team

Want to support our work? We’re entirely funded by our 3.2 million members-no corporate contributions, no big checks from CEOs. And our tiny staff ensures that small contributions go a long way. Chip in here.

I have to admit that I don’t plan to wear an Obama button, but I am happy to help other Democrats obtain them.

Use this as an open thread to discuss your favorite campaign buttons or bumper stickers. A friend of mine has been wearing a very cool button that says Barack Obama in Hebrew.  

If you’d like to meet Rob Hubler, the man trying to spare Iowans two more years with Steve King in Congress, you’ve got plenty of chances on the county fair circuit this weekend:

Thursday, July 24

1:30 p.m.  Harrison County Fair, Missouri Valley

4:30 p. m. Page County Fair, Clarinda

7:00 p.m.  Union County Fair, Afton

Friday, July 25

12 noon   Adair County Fair, Greenfield

2:15 p.m. Audubon County Fair, Aubudon

      (Aububon fundraiser in evening)

Saturday, July 26

12 noon   Sac County Fair, Sac City

3 p.m.     Plymouth County Fair, LeMars

6 p.m.    Pottawattamie County Fair (Westfair), Council Bluffs

        (Council Bluffs fundraiser in evening)

Sunday, July 27

12 noon    Cass County Fair, Atlantic

5:30 p.m.  Clarke County Fair, Osceola

If you want more details about either of the fundraisers, you can call the Hubler campaign headquarters for information or to RSVP: 712-352-2077

For your reading enjoyment, I give you Texas Nate’s latest diary: King embarrasses Iowa, self again

UPDATE: Al Rodgers has lots of video and photos of the reception Obama got from American soldiers in Baghdad. Think these people want to be home with their families?

A staple of John McCain’s stump speech has been to play up his military experience and to claim that he, unlike Barack Obama, will be able to win the war in Iraq.

It wasn’t the strongest hand to begin with, because polls show that a clear majority of Americans would rather bring our troops home from Iraq than keep them there indefinitely. Nevertheless, it made sense for McCain, an outspoken supporter of this unpopular war, to try to depict Obama’s plan for Iraq as irresponsible.

Trouble is, earlier this month Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki called for a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops. Obama quickly published this New York Times editorial laying out his plan:

Only by redeploying our troops can we press the Iraqis to reach comprehensive political accommodation and achieve a successful transition to Iraqis’ taking responsibility for the security and stability of their country. Instead of seizing the moment and encouraging Iraqis to step up, the Bush administration and Senator McCain are refusing to embrace this transition – despite their previous commitments to respect the will of Iraq’s sovereign government. They call any timetable for the removal of American troops “surrender,” even though we would be turning Iraq over to a sovereign Iraqi government.

But this is not a strategy for success – it is a strategy for staying that runs contrary to the will of the Iraqi people, the American people and the security interests of the United States. That is why, on my first day in office, I would give the military a new mission: ending this war.

As I’ve said many times, we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. We can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 – two years from now, and more than seven years after the war began. After this redeployment, a residual force in Iraq would perform limited missions: going after any remnants of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, protecting American service members and, so long as the Iraqis make political progress, training Iraqi security forces. That would not be a precipitous withdrawal.

As Obama pointed out, President Bush and McCain have repeatedly said they would respect the wishes of the sovereign Iraqi government. Well, Al-Maliki told the German magazine Der Spiegel last week that he supports the timetable laid out by Obama.

An unnamed Republican strategist summed it up for Marc Ambinder: “We’re f*cked.”

Couldn’t Al-Maliki have been mistranslated? It doesn’t look that way. NBC’s First Read had this to say on Monday about John McCain’s “rough weekend”:

You know you had a problematic weekend when: 1) one of your top economic advisers/surrogates finally steps down from the campaign after his “nation of whiners” remark; 2) you get panned for breaking CODEL protocol/etiquette by announcing (incorrectly) at a fundraiser that your opponent is headed to Iraq on Friday or Saturday; 3) the prime minister of Iraq tells a German magazine that he backs your opponent’s plan for withdrawing troops from that country; and 4) when the Iraqi government tries to walk back that support, it does so unconvincingly. On the bright side for McCain, his campaign seized on remarks from Joint Chiefs Chairman Mike Mullen that withdrawing US troops over the next two years would be “dangerous.”

[…]

Per NBC’s Andrea Mitchell, Obama has arrived in Baghdad and he spoke with Maliki. The headline after their photo-op: Maliki’s spokesman said afterwards (in English) that the Iraqi vision is for all US troops to be out of Iraq by 2010. And with this news — as well as the Der Spiegel interview, in which Maliki seemed to back Obama’s withdrawal plan — the trip seems like it has already been a PR success for the Illinois senator.

Memo to political journalists: this trip is a lot more than a PR success. McCain simply doesn’t have anything left supporting his determination to keep us in Iraq long-term. Why should Americans hire him as our commander-in-chief?

Now Republicans are trying to change the subject. Talking heads claim recent events in Iraq prove that McCain was right to support the “surge” in U.S. troops (which Obama opposed but voted to fund).

McCain tried to submit his own op-ed about Iraq to the New York Times, but the newspaper’s editors rejected it because it didn’t contain anything new of substance. (You can read the rejected piece here.)

It doesn’t look like McCain believes he can win the election on the Iraq issue, though. I say that because his paid advertising is not using his own campaign’s talking points on Iraq, such as how Obama never talks about winning the war, only about ending the war.

Instead, the McCain campaign has focused on energy policy in some early commercials. On Monday, as Obama visited Iraq, McCain started running a new television ad contrasting himself and Obama on new oil drilling:

Open Left has the script:

ANNCR: Gas prices – $4, $5, no end in sight, because some in Washington are still saying no to drilling in America.

No to independence from foreign oil.

Who can you thank for rising prices at the pump?

CHANT: Obama, Obama

ANNCR: One man knows we must now drill more in America and rescue our family budgets.

Don’t hope for more energy, vote for it. McCain.

JOHN MCCAIN: I’m John McCain and I approve this message.

On substance, this ad is absurd. Drilling for more oil in the U.S. wouldn’t come close to replacing the oil we purchase from foreign countries. Oil companies aren’t even leasing all the currently available fields for offshore drilling. Opening up new drilling sites wouldn’t bring any new oil onto U.S. markets for years.

And anyway, who’s been running the country for the last seven and a half years? Obama’s just one senator out of 100, and he’s only been in Washington since 2005. But suddenly he’s to blame for rising gas prices?

At the same time, this commercial may be effective spin for McCain. To the average person, drilling for more oil here in America may sound like a good way to bring down prices and help us be independent from foreign oil. I also think the crowd chanting Obama’s name will be a turnoff for many viewers. If you don’t already support Obama, that probably sounds creepy.

An earlier McCain ad sought to tie Obama’s “hope and change” message to 1960s hippie culture, but I suspect this new approach has more potential for McCain. It suggests Obama only offers empty hope for more energy, while McCain has a plan. (Never mind that Obama has a much better plan for producing clean energy in the U.S.)

When Obama returns from his trip to the Middle East and Europe, he better have a good response ready on offshore drilling and energy independence.

In other McCain diversion news, the sometimes well-informed columnist Robert Novak says McCain may have something else in mind to steal Obama’s thunder this week:

Sources close to Sen. John McCain’s presidential campaign are suggesting he will reveal the name of his vice presidential selection this week while Sen. Barack Obama is getting the headlines on his foreign trip.

If McCain does name his running mate early, I doubt he will choose a dark horse. My money would be on Mitt Romney.

Final note: I don’t have satellite radio, but Keith Nichols mentioned that The Bill Press Show on Sirius 146 is doing a countdown of 101 reasons to vote against John McCain. They give a new reason every morning at 7:25 am (central time). The list of reasons 63 through 101 can be found here. The page is updated daily.

The Nevada Republican Party didn’t want to take that chance. They canceled their state convention, set for next Saturday, because the number of RSVPs from delegates was well below the level needed for a quorum.

This was the second attempt to hold the Nevada GOP convention. State party officials abruptly ended the originally scheduled event in April when Ron Paul supporters outnumbered supporters of John McCain among the delegates.

Nevada is in my opinion the state most likely to go Democratic thanks to Libertarian presidential candidate and former Republican Congressman Bob Barr. Not only are there huge numbers of Ron Paul supporters who don’t back McCain, there is a relevant history. The Libertarian vote in the 1998 Senate race was large enough to hand a narrow victory to Democrat Harry Reid.

Speaking of Barr, he showed up at the liberal Netroots Nation gathering today. Daily Kos user dday landed an impromptu interview and put up this entertaining diary about it.

This guy is all class.

According to the Des Moines Register, about 160 immigrants face deportation “because their U.S. citizen spouses died less than two years after their marriages and before the survivors’ permanent residency applications were approved.”

A bipartisan group in Congress, including some conservative Republicans, is trying to change the law so that these widows’ and widowers’ residency applications can be reviewed individually. Otherwise these unfortunate people are forced to fight deportation while also dealing with a bereavement and in some cases looking after children.

Who’s the one person loudly objecting to this law? None other than fifth district Representative Steve King. In addition to being generally concerned about our “runaway immigration policy,” he has specific problems with the bill:

King also said more protections were needed to ensure immigrant spouses have good moral character or that they planned to come to the United States prior to the spouse’s death.

“A soldier, man or woman, could get drunk in Bangkok, wake up in the morning and be married, as will happen sometimes in places like Las Vegas or Bangkok, be killed the next day, and the spouse who was a product of the evening’s celebration would have then a right to claim access to come to the United States on a green card,” King said.

Remember, this bill would have U.S. immigration officials review applications on a case-by-case basis. I doubt a marriage of drunk people who barely knew each other would be deemed legitimate.

Anyway,

He said he agreed with the sentiment in the bill but Congress cannot take care of “every sad story that we have and if we do that, we are going to create a lot more sad stories in the United States from the people that will take advantage.”

His position has befuddled advocates of changing the penalty […].

“I’ve never come across anybody who actually voiced opposition,” said Brent Renison, an Oregon immigration lawyer […].

Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., who sponsored the bill in committee, said the “widow penalty” is one of the top reasons for private relief bills in Congress.

But why do something humane that will also save members of Congress the time they spend on passing these private relief bills?

Better to continue making a name for yourself as the guy who can always think of a reason not to help immigrants.

If Congressman Steve King hadn’t already won the “jackass award,” someone would need to give it to him for the way he behaved at a House Judiciary Committee hearing this week.

It’s no secret that King isn’t interested in the Congress serving as a check or balance on executive power. As we saw just a few weeks ago, King believes former White House spokesman Scott McClellan could have “done this country a favor” by keeping his mouth shut about alleged lawbreaking and lying in the Bush administration.

Apparently not satisfied with his efforts to sidetrack the McClellan hearings, King used one parliamentary trick after another on Tuesday to prevent Democrats on the Judiciary Committee from effectively questioning Douglas Feith, the former number three Pentagon official.

You really have to click over to Dana Milbank’s story for the Washington Post and read the whole thing to fully grasp how disgracefully King behaved. He and Congressman Darrell Issa (the wallet behind the recall of California Governor Gray Davis a few years back) were so disruptive that, according to Milbank, “Three and a half hours later, Feith had become but an asterisk at what was supposed to be his hanging.”

Not that it’s any big deal–Feith was only a key architect of the Bush administration’s policy on torture and false claims about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

As usual, King appears to be proud of his outrageous behavior. I learned from this piece by Douglas Burns that King’s campaign has prominently featured Milbank’s article on the incumbent’s website.

Incidentally, as far as I can tell, King’s campaign site ripped off Milbank’s whole article, rather than posting a link to the Washington Post site with an short excerpt. Are members of Congress subject to copyright law?

Anyway, King is proud to stand in the way of meaningful Congressional oversight of the executive branch. But don’t get the wrong idea. He doesn’t believe Congress should be powerless. Iowa Guy 2.0 recently reminded me that King went on record three years ago saying Congress could abolish federal courts, cut their funding or instruct the Department of Justice not to enforce court rulings if judges didn’t behave.

Separation of powers seems to be too difficult a concept for King to grasp.

Getting rid of King would not only benefit the residents of Iowa’s fifth district, but would also further the cause of proper Congressional oversight. Please kick in some cash to Rob Hubler, the Democratic nominee to represent Iowa’s fifth district.

It’s a Republican-leaning district (R+8), but we just won Mississippi’s first Congressional district, which tilts even more strongly to the GOP.

King has a money advantage, but his cash on hand of $251,000 is not a dominating war chest compared to what other incumbents have at their disposal.

Also, the Iowa wingnuts may be crazy, but they aren’t crazy about John McCain. The GOP presidential candidate will have a much weaker turnout operation in Iowa than Barack Obama, and the editor of the Storm Lake Times thinks King may be vulnerable given the atmosphere of “Republican despondence.”

If I haven’t convinced you with this post or my previous work highlighting King’s more embarrassing moments, take it from Texas Nate, who declared King to be “the worst Congressman of them all” in this MyDD diary. That’s quite a statement coming from Nate. They’ve got some really bad ones representing parts of Texas.

UPDATE: Ted Mallory, who lives in King’s district, has drawn a cartoon about King’s behavior in the Feith hearing:

http://tedstoons.blogspot.com/…

But last week the Wall Street Journal made a big deal about how Barack Obama supposedly “only” raised $30 million in June.

Today Obama’s campaign revealed that it raised $52 million in June, and the Democratic National Committee raised $22 million the same month. Obama apparently has about $72 million in cash on hand, while the DNC has about $20 million in cash on hand.

At Open Left, tremayne graphed Obama’s fundraising per month this year. February was his best month; he raised $55 million then.

John McCain raised about $22 million in June, but the Republican National Committee has crushed the DNC in fundraising this year, so if you combine the RNC and McCain numbers, their side has slightly more cash on hand.

But guess what? The average donation for Obama in June was $68. That means he has a ton of small donors who are not maxed out. In fact, only $2 million of the $52 million he raised is for the general election (in other words, came from people who had already maxed out at $2,300 for the primary).

I found this analysis by Jerome Armstrong intriguing:

I believe that Obama could have raised $100M in June if that’s what they wanted to do. In fact, there may have been plans to do just that too, but they changed. Notice that just $2M was raised for the GE by Obama, they certainly could have raised a ton more money there if they had wanted, for the GE, at least $20-30M, and combined with the $74M that was raised between Obama and DNC, over $100M.

So, either the Obama camp isn’t as committed to self-funding for the GE, and might still go the route of taking the $84M in public financing (unlikely); or they are holding off their donors to give for the GE later (there are accounts of projecting a $100M month in Sept); or the Obama camp will use July and August to raise big numbers for the GE, as the decision to opt-out was made on June 19th, late in the month for fundraising plans. It could be either of these last two it seems.

Certainly Obama will not take public financing for the general. But could his campaign be deliberately holding big general-election donations off until later this summer?

Reporting a $100 million haul this fall, at the height of the campaign, could hurt Republican morale and drive a lot of media coverage about the enthusiasm gap between Democrats and Republicans.

Maybe McCain will be forced to pick Mitt Romney for a running mate. He’s disliked by the Christian right but excellent at bringing in cash. Romney-skeptic Jeff Angelo is re-thinking the wisdom of this course for the GOP nominee.

Put your thoughts and suppositions about the presidential candidates’ fundraising in the comment thread.

I have some questions for anyone who participated in the statewide canvass Barack Obama’s campaign organized in Iowa last Saturday.

I would like to hear from as many people as possible, from different regions of Iowa if possible.

If you prefer not to post your answers on a blog, you can e-mail them to me confidentially: desmoinesdem AT yahoo.com

1. Did the script the campaign provided for volunteers say anything about Democratic candidates other than Obama?

2. Were you instructed to ask for voter preferences about Democratic candidates for Congress?

3. Were you instructed to ask for voter preferences about Democratic candidates for the Iowa House or Senate?

4. When you recorded voter IDs, were all Obama supporters and/or leaners lumped together in one group? Or were you asked to keep track of which Obama supporters were also backing down-ticket Democrats?

I’m trying to figure out how much emphasis there was on 1) getting the name of down-ticket Democrats out there, 2) tracking voter IDs regarding down-ticket Democrats, and 3) separating Obama supporters into different groups depending on whether the voters were also backing down-ticket Democrats.

Today I ran into a central Iowa college student I know. She asked about my t-shirt, which says Jerry Sullivan, State Representative District 59.

I explained that he’s a candidate in my district for the Iowa House. I asked where she lived, and when she told me I informed her that she lives in House district 60, where Alan Koslow is the Democratic candidate.

Her response was to shrug and say she doesn’t vote for anything but president. I tried to explain that a lot of things are decided by state governments, so she should check that “Democratic Party” box (Iowa allows party-line voting). I don’t know if I got through to her.

My point is that the Obama campaign should help educate voters so that they understand the need to do more than check the box next to Obama’s name.

Also, given Obama’s Iowa caucus strategy, I have some concern that his campaign may work on activating Republicans who will vote for him but against Democrats down-ticket.

Last week Senator Tom Harkin announced the winners of his “Building Blue” contest.

Apparently Oskaloosa residents were well-represented among the more than 5,000 Iowans who voted, because Representative Eric Palmer (HD 75) and Senator Tom Rielly (SD 38) were the winners. They will each receive $5,000 from Harkin’s campaign fund.

They already received $2,000 from Harkin’s fund for advancing to the final round of the contest, as did the other Democratic House and Senate candidates listed here.

Both Palmer and Rielly are first-term incumbents being targeted by Republicans. We should be able to hold both seats, especially since the Obama campaign has a field office up and running in Oskaloosa already. But we’ll need all hands on deck, so chip in to their campaigns if you can, and volunteer if you live in the area.

In the Des Moines Register on Monday, Thomas Beaumont reports on the contrast between the ground games of Barack Obama and John McCain in Iowa.

As I wrote yesterday, Obama has opened 15 field offices in Iowa, with two more planned.

McCain’s state headquarters in Urbandale is the GOP nominee’s only Iowa office so far, and according to Beaumont, the campaign is still trying to figure out where to locate about half as many field offices as Obama has up and running.

This passage is particularly telling:

Obama spent almost a year campaigning in Iowa before January, building up a staff of more than 150 and a volunteer network of about 3,500. That network had little time to rest after the caucuses.

Obama’s campaign aides have remained in touch with his Iowa supporters, as they worked to turn out delegates to county and district conventions in their battle with Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York for national delegates.

Obama’s general election campaign plan in Iowa follows the template that helped him win the caucuses, and which proved effective in his success in many states during the grueling nomination fight with Clinton.

That strategy focuses on having a local presence in as many places as the campaign can support and on keeping an army of 3,500 volunteers engaged, said Jack[ie] Norris, Obama’s Iowa campaign director.

“So much of what we were doing before the county conventions … was bringing up to speed again the Obama network in each of those counties,” said Norris, who was a top adviser to Obama’s caucus campaign.

Here’s hoping that army of volunteers gets deployed in the down-ticket races. They would be a huge asset to Rob Hubler, Becky Greenwald, and our House and Senate candidates all over the state.

Late last week the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee took the unusual step of releasing detailed information about where they plan to spend $34 million on television advertising this fall. Click the link to read how much the DCCC says it will spend in each of 31 districts, only 12 of which are currently held by Democrats.

As you can see from the comment thread under this post at Swing State Project, a lot of people are unhappy about winnable seats left off this list. What about netroots hero Darcy Burner, who fell just short in Washington’s eighth district in 2006? Shouldn’t Dan Seals get some help in Illinois’s tenth? Are we really going to give “Mean Jean” Schmidt a pass in Ohio’s second?

I was disappointed not to see Iowa’s fourth district listed. Most of its 28 counties are covered by Des Moines or Mason City television, which is not that expensive. But keep in mind that this is just time reserved by the DCCC, and it could change if the situation on the ground changes.

If some of the Democratic districts targeted now appear safe by September or October, the DCCC could shift money elsewhere.

I also think Todd Beeton is right to note that

There are plenty more GOP seats that should be on this list, CA-04 and WA-08 come immediately to mind. I look forward to seeing more seats added to this list as we get closer to November. What should be remembered is that this list is simply what the DCCC was comfortable making public and putting the GOP on notice.

It’s up to us Iowans to give Becky Greenwald a boost against Tom Latham in the D+0 fourth district. We already have a registration advantage in the district. We need to help Greenwald raise money and generate excitement around the race. When the DCCC reassesses the field later this year, it won’t be too late to get involved.

Clearly, the DCCC is not going to spend much money supporting Rob Hubler in Iowa’s fifth district, but we should keep our focus on that race too. It’s a terrible district to cover with television commercials, because the 32 counties are located in so many different media markets. But we can still give our time and money to Hubler’s campaign. King is an embarrassment, and he will get little top-of-the-ticket help from John McCain, who has no organization in Iowa.

The fifth is the most Republican district in Iowa with a partisan index of R+8, but we just won Mississippi’s first Congressional district, which tilts even more strongly to the GOP. The Storm Lake Times thinks that King may be vulnerable given the current political environment.

UPDATE: DCCC Executive Director Brian Wolff issued the following statement on the ad buy:

“Our initial media buy is the first act of a many act play.  As we have been all cycle, the DCCC is focused, prepared, and organized.  Watch what we do over the next four months and our aggressive strategy to expand the playing field and strengthen the Democratic Majority will become clear.”

cross-posted around the blogosphere

Barack Obama’s campaign held kickoff events in 15 Iowa field offices on Saturday, coinciding with the first statewide canvass of the general election campaign. In addition, the Obama campaign plans to open at least two more field offices in Iowa.

The Des Moines Register published an alphabetical list of cities and towns with Obama field offices. In this diary, I group the offices according to Congressional district.

If 17 field offices sounds like a lot for a medium-sized state like Iowa, keep in mind that Obama had at least 40 field offices here before the caucuses in January.

Also, the Iowa Democratic Party has in effect shut down its “coordinated campaign” for getting out the vote, which means that Obama’s field offices will coordinate GOTV for all Democratic candidates in the state.

Follow me after the jump for details.

Democratic candidate Rob Hubler has sent an open letter to Congressman Steve King inviting him to participate in eight debates before the November election.

King refused to debate challenger Joyce Schulte in 2004 and 2006, but his spokeswoman did not immediately rule out the possibility that the incumbent would debate Hubler.

The sites proposed by Hubler for debates are geographically dispersed around the fifth district: Sioux City, Carroll, Spirit Lake, Red Oak, Storm Lake, Council Bluffs, Orange City, and Osceola.

Speaking of Storm Lake, the editor of the Storm Lake Times wrote in the July 5 issue that

We’re told by the Obama camp that it will push to win the Fifth District. It may sound far-fetched, but Democrats Berkley Bedell and Tom Harkin proved that a progressive with common sense can win in Western Iowa.

The conservative Christian base of the Republican Party that prevails in these quarters is not energized by GOP standard bearer John McCain as it was with Bush. It’s possible that turnout could be muted in November among this key voting bloc. […]

We could see Obama carrying the Fifth by winning Dickinson, Clay, Buena Vista, Carroll, Woodbury, Pottawattamie and Cherokee counties. That’s where the population is, and that’s where the most independent voters are. He might be able to compete in Crawford and O’Brien counties.[…]

Republican despondence also may be a threat to incumbent Rep. Steve King, R-Kiron. Scoff if you will, but again recall that Harkin defeated incumbent Bill Scherle and Bedell knocked off incumbent Wiley Mayne in the post-Watergate landslide. The atmospherics may be similar this year.

Sorry, no link is available on that newspaper’s website.

Hubler visited all 32 counties in the fifth district last year and has continued to campaign actively this year. He is visiting all the county fairs in the district during July.

The full text of the press release about Hubler’s open letter to King is after the jump.

The Iowa GOP convenes today after flooding derailed its originally scheduled state convention last month. John Deeth is liveblogging the proceedings over at his blog.

Please share any thoughts you have about the Republicans’ prospects or strategies in our state.

By the way, Deeth wrote an interesting post on the uncontested races for the Iowa House and Senate. Republicans left one Democratic state senator and 20 Democratic state representatives without a challenger. Democrats failed to field a candidate in six Republican-held Senate districts and 10 House districts.

UPDATE: David Yepsen notes that Mike Huckabee’s presence signals he may run for president in 2012 if John McCain loses to Barack Obama this year. Yepsen also sees the Iowa GOP moving to the right:

Steve Scheffler, the head of the Iowa Christian Alliance, easily ousted longtime national committee member Steve Roberts by a vote of 788 to 543.  Kim Lehman, the head of the Iowa Right to Life, defeated state Rep. Sandy Greiner for the job of national committeewoman by a vote of 729 to 484.

Roberts and Greiner were seen as the older, more centrist candidates who sought to make the party a big tent that appealed to a wide, diverse group of people.  Scheffler and Lehman said the party needed to take strong stands on social issues in order to attract voters and inspire workers.  Yet centrists argue these positions turn off independents and mainstream voters needed to win elections.

At one level, their election is further evidence of the rightward drift of the Iowa GOP and how it’s been hijacked by a narrow ideological faction that sometimes seems bent on turning the GOP into a church instead of a political party.

But it’s also a recognition that the party machinery is in sad shape and some Republicans want a shake-up in management.  While Scheffler and Lehman are most definitely on the right hand side of the spectrum, they are also respected for their organizational skills.

The desire for new management bodes ill for state party chairman Stewart Iverson when the central committee meets after the November election to elect a chair for the coming year.  (He just replaced Ray Hoffman as party chair, has little time to right the organizational ship, but will still take the rap for any Republican defeats in the fall.)

Polk County GOP chairman Ted Sporer, who is allied with Scheffler and Lehman supporters, is making noises about challenging Iverson if he runs.

Barack Obama has released a strong statement on the Medicare bill that the U.S. Senate passed yesterday. John McCain opposed the bill but did not show up to vote against it.

Obama’s statement begins by briefly explaining why he is right and McCain is wrong:

“Today, the U.S. Senate took a major step forward in addressing the needs of seniors and military families all across this nation.  At a time when doctors are facing double digit increases in the costs of providing care, I am proud to have joined with my colleagues to stop a devastating cut in physician reimbursement that would have caused them to shut the door to many Medicare and Tricare beneficiaries.  John McCain has said that he would have opposed this bill, demonstrating yet again that he’s more than willing to put the interests of the health insurance industry over our nation’s 44 million seniors and 9 million uniformed service members,” said Senator Barack Obama.

The release then cites numbers calculated by the American Medical Association on the impact of this bill in 19 states (which just happen to be states contested in the presidential race). For each state, five numbers are given:

-the dollar amount in Medicare payments that would have been lost by December 2009 if the bill had not passed

-the average dollar amount each physician would have lost in reimbursements

-the number of employees who would have been affected

-the number of Medicare patients who would have been affected

-the number of TRICARE patients who would have been affected

For instance,

Iowa:

         Payments Lost by Dec. 2009: $110 million

         Average Physician’s Loss: $17,000

         People Affected:       27,095 employees,

468,637 Medicare patients

41,891 TRICARE patients

The format makes it quick and easy for a newspaper editor or broadcast news producer in any of these 19 states to cast this story in a favorable light for Obama and an unfavorable light for McCain.

The full text of the press release is after the jump.

I saw John McCain’s latest television commercial on the Cotton Mouth Blog:

This ad will run on national cable networks and in Colorado, Iowa, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin.

Did you catch that?

McCain is paying for television time in Mississippi, a state where George Bush beat John Kerry by 59 percent to 40 percent.

In May, DavidNYC laid out a scenario for how Barack Obama could win Mississippi. I thought that sounded fanciful, but as the Cotton Mouth Blog noted,

John McCain’s campaign doesn’t have enough money to spend in places he’s “not worried.”

In terms of content, this ad is mostly a standard introductory biographical piece. It presents McCain as a war hero in Vietnam and a maverick in the Senate, where he isn’t guided by polls and isn’t afraid to take on presidents and partisans, including in his own party.

The 60-second commercial takes a few not-so-subtle swipes at Obama. It opens with visuals of hippies as the voice-over says:

It was a time of uncertainty, hope and change. The Summer of Love. Half a world away, another kind of love–of country. John McCain.

Get it? “Hope and change” = dirty hippies. I doubt connecting those images with Obama is going to work, though. He was what, seven years old at the time? Anyway, he explicitly rejects the politics of the 1960s in his speeches.

Toward the end of the ad, the voice-over says:

John McCain doesn’t always tell us what we hope to hear. Beautiful words cannot make our lives better, but a man who has always put his country and her people before self, before politics, can.

Don’t hope for a better life. Vote for one. McCain.

I bolded the words that the voice-over speaks with special emphasis.

Can a commercial like this neutralize Obama’s message of “Yes we can” and the “politics of hope”? I didn’t find it convincing, but I’m obviously not the target audience.

What do you think?

This Associated Press story has the worst analysis of a poll I’ve seen in a while (which is saying something): Pet owners prefer McCain over Obama

Click the link to read about an AP-Yahoo! poll that showed pet owners prefer McCain, 42 percent to 37 percent, while people who don’t have a pet prefer Obama 48 percent to 34 percent.

Associated Press writer Randolph E. Schmid asserts that the “pet-owning public seems to have noticed the difference” between McCain, who has many pets, and Obama, who has none. There are some silly quotes from pet owners about the fine characteristics of people who have pets at home.

I’m not a pollster or a statistician, but without even trying hard I can think of five confounding variables that may have more to do with the results than pet owners identifying with McCain because he also has animals at home.

1. Are wealthier people more likely to have a pet? Because that group would skew more Republican than the population at large.

2. The same goes for people who own their own homes, who are probably more likely to own pets than people who are homeless or live in apartments. Remember, many landlords don’t allow pets in apartments.

3. Are married people more likely to keep a pet than single people? Republicans tend to do better among married voters than single voters.

4. The AP piece mentions that dog owners are particularly slanted toward McCain. Well, most hunters own at least one dog, and people who keep a gun at home are more likely to vote Republican than people who live in a home with no guns.

5. Are men more likely to be dog owners than cat owners? The gender gap in voting behavior has been documented for decades.

The AP article doesn’t bring up any most of these potential confounding variables. [CORRECTION: Buried down at the bottom of the piece, the AP article does mention that a higher proportion of dog owners are married, compared to the population at large, and that white people are more likely than black people to own dogs.]

Despite being a dog-lover myself, I didn’t even know that Obama had no pets, and I’m well-informed politically. I doubt that even 1 percent of Americans will make up their minds based on whether a presidential candidate has a pet.

UPDATE: The “mystery pollster” Mark Blumenthal posted his entertaining and informative take on this story. He also links to this Google search showing how many mainstream news outlets ran with the AP’s misleading but “irresistibly cute lead.”

Via Jeralyn at TalkLeft, I saw this video from Progress Now. Today in Denver, McCain campaign staff got the police to escort a 61-year-old librarian from a public town-hall meeting on public property. She was issued a ticket for trespassing as well. Her offense was to stand there with a sign that said, “McCain = Bush”:

If you watch the video, you’ll see a man dressed up as a peapod with photos of Bush and McCain. It looks like he was also forced to leave the venue.

I don’t think it’s consistent with the First Amendment for the police or the Secret Service to remove Democrats from McCain’s public appearances.

But I’m gratified to know how worried they are about a “McCain = Bush” sign. At the end of that video clip, the librarian asks rhetorically why any Republican who voted for Bush would find her sign offensive. The obvious answer is that Bush is the most unpopular president in history.

In case you think this was an isolated incident that doesn’t reflect the judgment of McCain’s senior staff, watch the tv ad McCain has been running in Pennsylvania:

That’s right, the ad explicitly praises McCain for allegedly standing up to the president on global warming.

Chris Bowers explains why this ad spells doom for McCain:

McCain’s message focus for over a week now has been on how we need progressive change on energy and global warming. Even if his policies don’t match, he is at least running on a progressive, Democratic message. Not only does this imply that Democrats have the right ideas on energy, global warming and other ideas, McCain’s ad explicitly says that he stood up to other Republicans on this issue. In other words, McCain is bluntly saying that Democrats are right, and Republicans are wrong.

I don’t know how you win an election by making “the other guys were right [all] along” the focus of your message. Seems to me that it will only reinforce the growing notion that Democrats were right all along, and result in more people voting for Democrats.

Do you think the Republican Party is angry about McCain’s messaging? Not from the looks of this ad that the Republican National Committee is now running in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin:

Josh Orton notes the irony of the RNC paying to run ads that brag about how McCain pushed his own party to act on climate change.

As I mentioned a few days ago, the National Republican Congressional Committee is advising candidates to make their campaigns about personal and local issues.

Republican strategists know which way the wind is blowing, and it’s not at their backs.

cross-posted around the blogosphere

On July 4 I marched with volunteers and staff for Jerry Sullivan, Democratic candidate in Iowa House district 59.

We don’t hear much about state legislative races on national blogs, because it would be overwhelming to keep up with what’s going on all over the country.

But you should get involved on behalf of a good Democrat running for your state’s Assembly, House or Senate. Five reasons why are after the jump.

I haven’t written about Barack Obama’s statement on the Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Act, which the campaign released on Thursday. I have nothing original to say about it.

Glenn Greenwald has the long, analytical version of what’s wrong with Obama’s statement.

Paul Rosenberg has the short, funny version.

While Obama has disappointed progressives lately, you have to admit that his campaign is still sharp on the marketing side.  

DemConWatch reported on Thursday that Obama might accept the Democratic Party’s nomination on Invesco Field at Mile High Stadium in Denver. That venue can hold at least 70,000 people. The Pepsi Center where the rest of the Democratic National Convention will be held could only accommodate about 21,000.

DemConWatch reported yesterday that this looks like a done deal, despite the possible logistical problems.

How great will it be to have the Democratic nominee speak in a packed football stadium, while John McCain (not the darling of any GOP base constituency) gives a ho-hum speech in St. Paul? It will force the media to dwell endlessly on the enthusiasm gap between the Democrats and Republicans and on the charisma gap between Obama and McCain.

I love it.