I was glad to see this press release a few days ago from Becky Greenwald’s campaign:

For Immediate Release

Contact: Erin Seidler

July 2, 2008                                                                                                        515-537-4465

Tom Latham’s Other ‘Milestones’ In Congress

Des Moines – Tom Latham announced today that he has held 450 town hall meetings since taking office. The Greenwald for Congress campaign thought this was a good opportunity to discuss Tom Latham’s other “milestones” since taking office in 1995.

7             The number of times Tom Latham has voted to continue the Iraq War, even as recently as June 19th.

92            The percentage of Tom Latham’s votes cast in Congress that were following the Republican Party line. That is even higher than Steve King.

507          Amount, in millions, for veteran’s healthcare that Tom Latham voted against in 2006 in favor of tax cuts for people making more than a million dollars per year. (HR 5385)

“Looking at the numbers, Tom Latham isn’t listening to the people of the 4th District at his town hall meetings,” said Erin Seidler, Communications Director. “It’s time to make a difference in the 4th District and elect Becky Greenwald for Congress. “

The National Republican Congressional Committee is advising Republican candidates “to establish themselves in a personal manner, emphasizing local issues whenever possible.” A recent strategy document warns against nationalizing the Congressional races in light of the GOP’s very unpopular national brand.

It’s no surprise that Latham would brag about his town-hall meetings. He has every reason to go by the new GOP playbook in his swing district where Democrats have made huge gains in voter registration and now slightly outnumber Republicans.

Remember, Democratic candidates have won special elections this year in Republican-leaning Congressional districts in Illinois, Louisiana and Mississippi.

If I were Greenwald, I would remind fourth district voters every day that on Iraq and many other issues, Latham has continually marched in lockstep with President Bush and the Republican leadership in Congress.

The Cook Political Report recently changed its rating for Iowa’s fourth district from “Solid Republican” to “Likely Republican.”

Don’t be surprised if it gets upgraded to “Lean Republican” before too long.

Greenwald is working hard. She participated in three Fourth of July parades yesterday (in Clear Lake, Waukee and Iowa Falls) and is raising a lot of money. She has another big fundraiser coming up in Des Moines on July 10, by the way–for details, call 515-564-3883. The more local contributions she receives, the better the chance that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and EMILY’s List will fully commit to this race.

According to this report by Jason Hancock at Iowa Independent,

At least 20 employees of the Iowa Democratic Party have been demoted or fired and a coordinated state-wide campaign was essentially disbanded, replaced by a focus on the presidential bid of Sen. Barack Obama.

Details are sketchy, but the changes could have an impact on November’s legislative races, with field staff that was previously working for down-ticket races now being placed on the payroll of Obama’s presidential campaign and working almost entirely on its behalf.

If this story is accurate, it could be very bad news for down-ticket candidates. Obama’s campaign needs only to win the statewide popular vote, and no doubt its field plan will reflect that reality. They have every reason to focus on increasing turnout in Democrat-rich, highly-populated areas.

However, most of those precincts are in the first, second and third Congressional districts, and/or in urban state legislative districts where Democratic incumbents are safe.

I was hoping that the Iowa Democratic Party’s coordinated campaign would put a special emphasis on getting out the vote in the fourth and fifth Congressional districts, as well as in the battleground districts for the Iowa House and Senate.

Governor Chet Culver recently donated $100,000 from his campaign fund to the Iowa Democratic Party’s coordinated campaign. If I were Culver, I’d want to make sure that turnout efforts focused on building larger Democratic majorities in the state legislature.

Hancock’s article for Iowa Independent notes that

the biggest impact could be on state legislative candidates, who depend on the pooled resources of the coordinated campaign for much of their volunteer coordination and get-out-the-vote programs. Candidates in close races had already paid the initial fee to join the coordinated campaign — up to about $10,000 each — before word leaked out that the Obama campaign would not participate in the joint effort. Money that was paid into the coordinated campaign by candidates will be used to fund the summer canvass and, if financially possible, to extend the canvass through November.  Canvassers will focus on down-ticket races.  The rest of the Democratic operatives deployed around the state will report directly — and exclusively — to the Obama campaign.

The situation mirrors what happened in Colorado, where the Obama campaign announced last last month it would not be joining the state’s coordinated campaign and instead would operate alongside it. The move drew criticism from some Colorado Democrats who fear the party will end up duplicating efforts and squandering resources.

The difference is that Colorado is likely to be much more closely contested in the presidential race.

Obama is heavily favored to win Iowa’s electoral votes. He has never trailed McCain in a head-to-head poll in Iowa. The Democratic voter registration edge has increased substantially in Iowa during the past year, thanks largely to the caucuses in January. Obama has a strong statewide network of volunteers, while John McCain has never built an organization here and barely campaigned here before the caucuses.

I am concerned that Iowa Democrats will lose some close districts as a result of letting the Obama campaign run the statewide field operation. For the first time in my life, a Democrat is running a strong campaign in my own House district 59. As an environmental activist, I know we can’t make headway on a number of important issues unless we get more good Democrats to the statehouse.

I would like assurances from the Obama campaign that they will dedicate substantial GOTV resources to the key legislative districts, and not only to the areas likely to produce the largest number of presidential votes for Obama.

UPDATE: Open Left user Valatan raised another good point:

if anyone wins in Iowa, they owe their victory to Obama’s machine, not the Iowa Democratic party’s GOTV machine.  I wonder if this is quietly happening everywhere, or just in the swing states.

I’ve asked a lot of other state bloggers whether the Obama campaign will coordinate all GOTV in their states. Someone from Missouri wrote back to say that Missouri Democrats would never allow that to happen, because in 2004 the state Democratic Party cooperated with the Kerry campaign, and then the Kerry campaign pulled the plug on all GOTV in Missouri in October.

That makes me even more worried. What if Obama is feeling very confident in Iowa by October, but looks like he may be in trouble in other states? Could his campaign shut down the bulk of his Iowa field operation in order to invest the resources elsewhere?

Whether Obama wins Iowa by 5 percent or 10 percent is of no concern to me, but whether we have 51 or 53 or 55 or 57 Democrats in the Iowa House could make or break a lot of important legislative initiatives in 2009.

Barack Obama’s communications director in Iowa for the general election campaign will be Brad Anderson, who was Governor Chet Culver’s spokesman until May.

The Obama campaign hired Tripp Wellde to be Iowa field director. He was one of the early hires in Obama’s Iowa campaign, arriving in Davenport in March 2007 according to Hotline.

Anyone out there planning to volunteer for Obama in Iowa this summer? Do they have anything special going on for the holiday weekend? I assume they will have a presence in July 4 parades all over the state.  

Barack Obama has figured out that he doesn’t need to go along with the media’s feeding frenzy on Wesley Clark.

The TPM Veracifier team put together a tremendous collection of clips on how pundits have distorted what Clark said on Face the Nation this Sunday:

Media Matters points out the obvious: the manufactured outrage over Clark’s so-called attack obscures the fact that Clark praised McCain’s military service, while noting that military service alone does not qualify him to be commander-in-chief.

The Columbia Journalism Review’s Zachary Roth has a must-read commentary about the media distortions as well.

Mark your calendar for July 9: Moveon.org is organizing events at gas stations around the country in a “National Day of Action for an Oil-Free President.” The main goal is to inform voters that

John McCain’s campaign is run by oil lobbyists,1 it’s funded by oil companies,2 his policies are straight out of Big Oil’s playbook,3 and he won’t solve our energy crisis.

After the jump you can read the full text of the e-mail I received from Moveon.org. It includes footnotes supporting the assertions in that quote.

Fortunately for Barack Obama, Moveon.org isn’t going to be less involved in this election just because Obama made a gratuitous swipe at the group on Monday.

I was happy to see that Moveon.org also defended Wes Clark, who has been getting slammed by the right-wing noise machine. By the way, the Obama campaign went out of its way to “reject” Clark’s reasonable statements about McCain’s qualifications to be president.

This post by Chris Bowers explains succinctly why disavowing Clark was dumb:

No one in the entire country is more important to Democratic credibility on foreign policy than Wesley Clark. No one. And this isn’t just my opinion, it is the opinion of Democratic congressional candidates who requested him.

There are those who think that Obama is being super secret strategic on this one, and playing both the McCain campaign and the media for a fiddle. However, if you really want to be strategic, you need to see the whole board. Going well beyond this media cycle, and even going beyond this presidential election, Republicans score a huge strategic victory if they are able to permanently damage the credibility of the leading Democratic spokesperson on national security.

Paul Rosenberg had a priceless comment in that thread:

Incompetent is you think tactically instead of strategically.

Idiotic is you think tactically instead of strategically about the strongest surrogate you have on your weakest suit in the game.

Getting back to the main point of this post, Moveon.org is right to hit McCain campaign over energy policy. He is worse than Obama on that issue, and the price of gas is at the forefront of voters’ minds this summer.

If you attend or help organize one of the July 9 events, please put up a diary here to let us know how it went.

Watch Rob Hubler make his case:

Not only does Steve King embarrass all Iowans on a regular basis, he doesn’t even serve his constituents well. The Sioux City Journal researched the question How effective is Steve King?, and couldn’t come up with many accomplishments.

In fact, only three of the 44 bills King has sponsored even made it out of committee. Keep in mind that for the first two of King’s three terms in the House, Republicans controlled the chamber.

King has managed to get one bill through, according to the the Sioux City Journal. That was a resolution on “Recognizing the importance of Christmas in the Christian faith.”

No, that is not a joke from The Colbert Report.

Commenting on the Sioux City Journal’s article about King, Douglas Burns notes that King has focused on expanding Highway 20 but seems little concerned about Highway 30, which has more traffic and economic development potential.

Do Iowans a favor and give some cash to Hubler’s campaign.

Although John McCain hasn’t raised nearly as much money as Barack Obama has, the Republican National Committee has far outpaced the Democratic National Committee in fundraising.

The DNC is trying to narrow that gap, but it will need a lot more donations from individuals, because like Obama’s campaign, the DNC is not accepting donations from Washington lobbyists or political action committees.

They’ve designed a t-shirt that says “Democratic Party–Not Paid For by Special Interest PACs or Washington Lobbyists.” If you click this link and donate at least $30, you can get one:

https://donate.barackobama.com…

I am not currently donating to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee or the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, because I am dissatisfied with the House and Senate leadership and prefer to give to individual candidates.

However, I encourage everyone to support the DNC, because I believe Howard Dean’s investment in the 50-state strategy will pay huge dividends to our party. Two or three years ago, some skeptics thought it was a waste of time for Dean to invest in the state Democratic parties, but we have won three special Congressional elections in a row this year in Republican-leaning districts.

After the jump I’ve put the full text of the DNC’s fundraising e-mail that went out today.

If you haven’t donated to any Democratic candidates yet in the second quarter, what are you waiting for?

The various major blogs are raising money for some of their favorite candidates for the U.S. House and Senate, and many deserve your support. For instance, Larry Kissell (NC-08) lost to Republican incumbent Robin Hayes by only a few hundred votes in 2006.

If David Mizner, veteran of a hundred blog flamewars between supporters of Barack Obama and John Edwards, can give money to Obama, you can dig into your wallet and give money to some good Democrats today.

I’ve already donated to Rob Hubler and Becky Greenwald, who are running for Congress against Steve King and Tom Latham.

Here is Greenwald’s page at ActBlue, and here is Hubler’s page.

Most Democratic candidates for the Iowa legislature have pages at ActBlue as well. Go to www.actblue.com and search for the candidate’s name.

Or, google the candidate’s name to find a campaign website, where a mailing address will be provided in case you prefer sending checks in the mail.

Just be sure to write the check today. It has to be dated June 30 to count for the second quarter.

Today is the last day of the second quarter, and it’s important for candidates to show strong fundraising.

I encourage you to give to a few good Democrats today, either online or by writing a check (the check must be dated June 30).

I received this appeal from Rob Hubler, who is trying to do all Iowans a favor by retiring Congressman Steve King:

June 29, 2008

Dear [desmoinesdem],

I am trying to bring back Real Representation to Iowa’s fifth district, and I need your help.

The second quarter FEC deadline is only a day away – Monday, June 30th. Will you help show our strength in the upcoming filing by contributing what you can today?

The political analysts love to base their idea of a campaign on the size of its pocketbook over the issues of the candidate. While you and I know that ideas and organization are what really matters to the people of the fifth district, we also need to show financial strength. National organizations face a decision of which races to help, and look at this quarter to base their decision. We need to show that western Iowa is working hard to defeat Steve King. If you have been waiting to donate to my campaign, this is the perfect time when it will help us out the most.

In the last few weeks I have spoken to democrats, independents and republicans at events across the district and the state; and everywhere I go people are telling me the same thing: give Steve King the pink slip!

Even the press is taking notice. Check out this article from the Sioux City Journal with the headline: How effective is Steve King?

I hope you’ll be able to help us show them that what Iowa really wants in its congressman is a servant – not a king.  

Thank you,

Rob

p.s. – you can contribute online by visiting our ActBlue page. If you are sending a check, it is important that it is written on or before June 30th. If you are donating online, it’s important that it is done by midnight June 30th.

Can you imagine how frustrated Mitt Romney must be right now?

I submit to you that if Romney’s opposition research team had discovered that John McCain didn’t pay property taxes on one of his seven homes for more than four years, or that McCain didn’t know the price of gasoline and didn’t think that it was important for him to know it, Romney would be the Republican presidential nominee.

He didn’t lose to McCain in Florida and California by much, and Mike Huckabee didn’t lose to McCain in South Carolina by much either. With most GOP primaries being winner-take-all, McCain would probably have been out of the running if primary voters had known about his tax problems.

I so wanted Romney to win the nomination. I think either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton would have beaten him in a crushing landslide. Whatever the pundits thought about his telegenic nature, he came across as incredibly phony to me. A lot of evangelical Christians would have stayed home or voted for third-party candidates rather than vote for him because his change of heart on abortion didn’t seem authentic.

I’m surprised his well-funded campaign didn’t figure out that McCain defaulted on California property taxes.  

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton headlined a rally today in Unity, New Hampshire, where each candidate received 107 votes in the January 8 primary.

I didn’t watch any of the footage, but it sounds as if they had lots of effusive praise for each other. The main sound bite from Obama about Hillary was, “She rocks.”

Use this as an open thread to discuss anything related to healing the Democratic Party going into the general election.

As I’ve said before, I think the long primary battle was on balance good for our party.

I still think it’s important for Obama to “do no harm” with his choice of a running mate, which means that if he doesn’t want Hillary Clinton on the ticket, he better choose someone who will not alienate the demographic groups that favored Hillary in the primaries.

UPDATE: You can view loads of pictures from the event in this diary by a college student:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/…

Over at the Washington Independent, Spencer Ackerman has given Congressman Steve King the “jackass award”. Here’s why:

He says first that we can’t trust interrogators who want to “cuddle up to someone” to get the truth, even though that’s pretty close to what professional interrogators actually do to get the truth. And then he says that Bush used the same “aggressive” reasoning to go into Iraq to deal with weapons of mass destruction, because if he hadn’t and “we had been attacked again,” or if we hadn’t waterboarded Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and then we were attacked again, then the critics now would be perhaps impeaching Bush. This is his defense! A mess of counterfactual conditionals, factual misstatements (there, like, weren’t any WMDs in Iraq) and pure, unadulterated politics. God bless Mr. King.

Please help rid our state of this national embarrassment. Support Rob Hubler, Democratic candidate in the fifth district, with a donation before the June 30 deadline.

I went over quite a few reasons to support Hubler against King in this post.

It’s also worth noting that Hubler released a strong statement opposing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that just passed the House last week.

Very demoralized, judging by Steve King’s latest comments to the press:

Iowa 5th District Congressman Steve King said a lack of enthusiasm in the Republican Party will make it difficult for the GOP to regain control of the U.S. House.

Democrats wrested control from Republicans in November 2006, putting lawmakers who had only known serving in the majority into the minority. King said Monday he’s doubtful the House, which now has 236 Democrats and 199 Republicans, can swing back.

“The math doesn’t look good,” King said.

I wouldn’t be surprised if Republican turnout in King’s own district this November is substantially down on 2004 levels, because John McCain has never been popular with hard-core conservatives.

Less than a week remains in the second fundraising quarter–go give some cash to Rob Hubler, who is challenging King.

So the U.S. House races don’t look great for Republicans. What about the Senate?

Well, Senator John Ensign of Nevada chairs the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee, and he said two weeks ago that losing only three Senate seats “would be a terrific night for us, absolutely.” He added that Barack Obama is likely to help Democratic challengers in some states, such as Oregon.

Apparently Republican Senator Gordon Smith of Oregon agrees. This commercial tells you a lot about how Smith views the political climate:

Keep in mind that Smith endorsed John McCain early in the presidential contest. Yet clearly Smith believes that in Oregon, the less said about McCain, the better for his own re-election prospects.

Several bloggers have pointed out that this ad is misleading, since it implies that Obama has somehow endorsed Smith. Of course, Obama is solidly behind Smith’s Democratic opponent, Jeff Merkley.

Moreover, this commercial’s claim that Smith “helped lead the fight for a cleaner environment” is not supported by his voting record. Sarah Lane, netroots coordinator for Merkley, notes that Smith has a 29 percent lifetime rating from the League of Conservation Voters.

It’s not the first time Smith has tried to run away from the Republican Party in this campaign. This earlier tv ad portrayed him as someone who has stood up to President George Bush. I don’t think voters are going to buy this makeover.

If you want to follow the House and Senate races across the country, bookmark this page to read the frequent roundups by Daily Kos front-pager brownsox.

Getting back to our state, leading Iowa Republicans have been pessimistic about the coming election for months. The low turnout in the GOP primary races on June 3 can’t be encouraging for them.

Find a few statehouse candidates you believe in and give them money before June 30. Strong fundraising in the second quarter will help the candidates both directly and indirectly (by driving the media narrative about greater Democratic enthusiasm this year).

John McCain offered some new ideas on energy policy yesterday at a campaign stop in California:

The Arizona senator proposed a $300 million prize for whoever can develop a better automobile battery, and $5,000 tax credits for consumers who buy new zero-emission vehicles. The latest proposal is in addition to his support for overturning the federal ban on offshore oil drilling.

There was a rapid response from Sierra Club, which along with the United Steelworkers jointly endorsed Barack Obama a few days ago. I received this statement on the Iowa Sierra Club e-mail loop:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: June 23, 2008

CONTACT: Josh Dorner, 202.675.2384

             McCain Falls Short on Fuel Economy, Gas Prices

         America Needs Obama’s 50 MPG, $150 Billion Energy Plan

Washington, D.C.–The Sierra Club issued the following response to John

McCain’s speech on fuel economy and cars delivered today in Fresno,

California.

         Statement of Carl Pope, Sierra Club Executive Director

“Senator Obama has demonstrated the real leadership America needs to

address both our energy and economic crises.  He understands that the

long-term solution to high gas prices is making our cars get better gas

mileage. He pushed hard last year to raise fuel economy standards to 35

miles per gallon and wants to give the American auto industry the help it

needs to hit 50 miles per gallon within two decades.

“By contrast, John McCain has a spotty record when it comes to fuel economy

and seems more interested in offering up a $300 million gimmick rather than

exercising the kind of bold leadership America needs. He has repeatedly

failed to embrace what America really needs — a vehicle fleet that gets to

50 mpg on a predictable and aggressive schedule, and then keeps on getting

better.  Instead of a $300 million giveaway, Barack Obama has proposed to

do what is really needed.  He has a plan that calls for a $150 billion

investment in the technologies we need to fight global warming and end Big

Oil’s chokehold on our economy once and for all. Senator Obama also wants

to end taxpayer-funded giveaways to the oil industry, wants the industry to

pay its fair share on its record profits, and will crack down on the Wall

Street speculators gaming the system at the expense of hardworking

Americans.  Meanwhile, Senator McCain continues to oppose the key

incentives for renewable energy and energy efficiency that we need to make

the clean energy future a reality.”

In other recent McCain campaign news, Fortune magazine quoted the candidate’s adviser Charlie Black as saying a terrorist attack inside the U.S. “certainly would be a big advantage” to McCain.

The Republican nominee immediately disavowed Black’s comment, and Black apologized soon after.

If you’re wondering why the name Charlie Black sounds familiar, he’s a lobbyist who has represented heinous foreign dictators, and I mentioned him in this post a while back.

The Associated Press profiled the man leading McCain’s search for a running mate here.

Meanwhile, campaigning yesterday in New Mexico, Obama said he will “stand up for equal pay” for women as president, unlike McCain. I wrote about McCain’s opposition to the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act here. He claims to be “all in favor” of equal pay, but he won’t support a law that would help women who are denied equal pay to seek legal remedy for that discrimination.

Add that to Demo Memo’s list of ten reasons women should not vote for McCain.

Barack Obama’s campaign will not be using the presidential-style seal unveiled last Friday anymore. Apparently a lot of people agreed with me that the seal was a rare misstep for a campaign that has employed brilliant branding and marketing.

You can view the discontinued seal here.  

I think we can all agree that Barack Obama’s campaign has employed phenomenal marketing and branding.

I wonder whether the new seal they put on his podium during a speech in Chicago on Friday is going a bit far, though.

Click the link to view the seal. An Associated Press blurb notes:

A new seal debuted on Obama’s podium Friday, sporting iconography used in the U.S. presidential seal, the blue background, the eagle clutching arrows on left and olive branch on right, but with symbolic differences. Instead of the Latin ‘E pluribus unum’ (Out of many, one), Obama’s says ‘Vero possumus’, rough Latin for ‘Yes, we can.’ Instead of ‘Seal of the President of the United States’, Obama’s Web site address is listed. And instead of a shield, Obama’s eagle wears his ‘O’ campaign logo with a rising sun representing hope ahead.

I know it’s important for a candidate to look presidential, and I think putting his website address where all the cameras will catch it is a good idea. But I don’t know about using the presidential eagle, and I would particularly question putting his sunrise “O” in the middle of the eagle.

Obama has gotten plenty of traction from the larger-than-life image his campaign has helped to cultivate, but does this seal seem a bit presumptuous to you? I think his campaign imagery should be emphasizing his ability to relate to real people and their problems.

Incidentally, Mr. desmoinesdem says there is no word for “yes” in Latin, but I’ll take the AP’s word for it that the Latin words on the Obama seal could be roughly translated as “Yes, we can.”

To my mind, the “Yes, we can” slogan should only be used for a big political rally, when Obama is mostly speaking to his own supporters. If he is giving a policy address, I wouldn’t put “Yes, we can” front and center, because I don’t think that helps him with people who are not already backing him.

I think that when he gives a speech, the sign on his podium should just have a simple slogan in English, plus the website address.

Is anyone out there a marketing specialist? What do you think of the seal?

UPDATE: Daily Kos user robertacker13 sparked quite the flamewar with this diary: Call Obama, get rid of the seal

The leaders of the Sierra Club and United Steelworkers appeared in Cleveland on Friday with Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown to endorse Barack Obama for president.

The joint endorsement and accompanying press release emphasized Obama’s support for “a clean energy economy,” which would create jobs while protecting the environment.

It’s a welcome contrast to John McCain’s energy policy, which calls for investing $2 billion in so-called “clean coal” and constructing 45 new nuclear reactors by 2030.

The Sierra Club and United Steelworkers created the Blue Green Alliance in June 2006. The alliance has sought to draw attention to “economic opportunities that could come from a serious investment in renewable energy.”

This work is very important for the progressive movement. Too often the labor and environmental communities have found themselves on opposite sides of controversial issues. We saw that in Iowa earlier this year, when key labor groups backed plans to build a new coal-fired power plant near Marshalltown.

The full text of the Sierra Club’s press release on the Obama endorsement is after the jump. In addition to Obama’s energy policy, Sierra Club drew attention to:

-his opposition to further oil drilling in the Arctic Naitonal Wildlife Refuge;

-his opposition to storing nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain in Nevada;

-his promise to undo many of George Bush’s bad executive orders on the environment;

-his support for more regulation of confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs); and

-his efforts to reduce children’s exposure to lead.

Scott McClellan appeared before the House Judiciary Committee today to testify about the exposure of Valerie Plame as a CIA agent.

McClellan recently published a book called, “What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception.”

According to Dana Milbank of the Washington Post, Republicans on that committee “worked feverishly to discredit the former White House press secretary who had turned against his patron and former boss, President Bush.”

I don’t have a transcript of the hearing, but Milbank reported that Iowa’s own Congressman Steve King asked McClellan, “Couldn’t you have taken this to the grave with you and done this country a favor?”

That’s just what I try to teach my kids–when you see other people committing crimes and lying about it, do the country a favor by keeping your mouth shut.

If you are tired of King embarrassing our great state on a regular basis, please donate to Rob Hubler, the Democrat seeking to represent Iowa’s fifth Congressional district.

UPDATE: Josh Marshall put up this video clip from C-SPAN at Talking Points Memo:

SECOND UPDATE: Daily Kos user 2laneIA posted a good and funny diary about this too.

Here is Barack Obama’s first television commercial for the general election campaign:

Chris Bowers did an interesting content analysis, putting “conservative frames” in bold and underlining “progressive frames”:

The progressive frames include non-traditional family background, a community approach to governing, valuing service over Wall Street, and implications about increasing health care and opposing trade deals that hurt working families. The conservative frames are equally abundant, with talk of “self-reliance,” “heartland,” cutting taxes, “welfare,” and lots of emphasis on values and country.

I wonder if the ad is too muddled in order to be effective. While both progressives and conservatives will hear frames that they like in the ad, everyone will also hear things that they don’t like. Fundamentally the ad is chasing after both types of voters instead of trying to persuade them. Overall, it might end up leaving a mixed impression.

To me it was just a bland, introductory biographical ad. I didn’t find it particularly good or bad.

According to Marc Ambinder, the ad will run in 18 states:

Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Virginia

Interesting to see him being aggressive in places like Alaska, Montana, Georgia and North Dakota. I give him virtually zero chance of winning any of those states (and only a very slim chance of taking Missouri), but maybe he’s just trying to scare McCain into spending money and time there.

I don’t know why Obama would need to run this ad in Iowa, where people viewed many of his ads for months last year. John McCain has virtually no organization in this state and should not be a threat.

If it runs in the Omaha/Council Bluffs market, then Obama could make inroads in Nebraska’s first and second Congressional districts. Nebraska awards one electoral vote to the winner of each Congressional district and two to the statewide winner, so Obama may have a chance to pick up one or two electoral votes here.

What do you think of the ad’s content and placement?

Ed Fallon sent an e-mail to supporters today asking for donations to help retire approximately $35,000 in debt from his campaign (the first campaign he has ended in debt).

He hired a large field staff and was apparently counting on more help from national groups than he ultimately received. With the notable exception of Democracy for America, which raised tens of thousands of dollars for Fallon’s campaign, most progressive groups stayed on the sidelines during the primary in Iowa’s third district.

That includes some groups that spent lots of money on behalf of Donna Edwards in her successful primary challenge in Maryland’s fourth Congressional district.

Relatively few nationally-prominent bloggers helped Fallon raise money. In contrast, the Daily Kos community and the Blue America group of bloggers each raised tens of thousands of dollars for Donna Edwards.

The full text of the e-mail from Fallon is after the jump. If you want to donate to his campaign, you can still donate through the website at:

http://www.fallonforcongress.com

Alternatively, you can mail a check to Fallon for Congress, 752 16th Street, Des Moines, IA 50314.  

The House of Representatives may vote very soon on a bad compromise that would in effect grant retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies in the new version of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

If you live in Iowa’s third district, please call Congressman Leonard Boswell TODAY at 202-225-3806 to tell him to stand up for civil liberties and oppose the Senate version of the FISA bill.

His staff will notice if they get a lot of calls on this issue.

Background: Boswell was one of the “Blue Dogs” who supported the Republican position on this bill in February.

He changed his position a month later and stood with the majority of House Democrats.

The New York Times blog has more on the FISA compromise here.

Steve King likes nothing better than to stake out a conservative position on a hot-button social issue. I learned yesterday from the One Iowa advocacy group that this week Congressman King “has introduced a Federal Constitutional Amendment to codify discrimination and ban same sex marriages nationwide.”

Please consider donating to Democrat Rob Hubler’s Congressional campaign. Even though Iowa’s fifth district has a partisan index of R+8, turnout among hard-line conservatives may be depressed this November. John McCain has little organization in Iowa, and he is not popular with the anti-immigration wingnuts. Many moderate Republicans are embarrassed by King, so perhaps they would be open to ticket-splitting.

It’s not as if King has been effective in bringing money home to his district, which would give people a reason to vote for him even if they disagreed with some of his antics.

Need more reasons to support a good Democrat taking on this horrible Republican?

King received a perfect 100 rating from the American Conservative Union in 2007, and has a near-perfect 98 rating from that organization during his three terms in Congress.

King wrote Iowa’s English-only law when he was in the legislature and successfully filed suit to prevent the Secretary of State’s office from providing voter information in languages other than English.

He thinks it’s fine for pharmacists to refuse to prescribe the morning-after pill.

He has sponsored a constitutional amendment to ban the federal income tax and has warned against creating a “condom culture” in Africa.

And of course, he said a few months ago that terrorists would be dancing in the streets if Obama were elected president.

Click that last link for more of King’s “greatest hits,” including his defense of Senator Joseph McCarthy and his characterization of torture at Abu Ghraib as “hazing.”

Hubler deserves our support for taking on this challenge. I’ll be writing more about this race in the coming months. Click here to get involved in his campaign.

The full text of the e-mail I received from One Iowa about the newly proposed federal constitutional amendment is after the jump. You can donate to that organization’s Fairness Fund PAC at this ActBlue page. They have a matching gift pledge that runs through July 14.

Ed Kilgore: “The case for an Obama-Clinton ticket, also known as, you got any better ideas?”

Thomas Schaller: “He would lose his claim to being the candidate of change — and probably wouldn’t get any swing states in return.”

Read, then discuss.

I don’t know what the best choice for Obama is. I think Hillary clearly would help him in some swing states, but would she hurt him in others? He is presumably doing the state polling now to figure that out.

UPDATE: In what doesn’t look like a smart move to me, the Obama campaign has hired Patti Solis Doyle, who was responsible for many of the Clinton campaign’s enormous strategic errors, to be chief of staff for Obama’s future running mate.

Insiders are interpreting this as a signal that Obama is not even considering Hillary for VP. Clinton and Solis Doyle have apparently been estranged since Solis Doyle was fired right after Super Tuesday.

If I were Obama, I would not be going out of my way to insult the Clinton camp right now.

SECOND UPDATE: Matt Stoller is still advocating for Wes Clark as VP, and I find it hard to disagree after watching this video:

The VP candidate needs to help build the case against John McCain. Without coming across as strident, Clark makes a very effective case against McCain on national security (supposedly McCain’s strength). Clark’s longtime ties to the Clintons would help unite the party as well.

Over at Iowa Independent, Jason Hancock published this story about a handful of college activists for Hillary Clinton who have either endorsed John McCain or are considering voting for him.

As regular readers of this blog know, I am the last person to sing Barack Obama’s praises. I have deep concerns about him as a candidate and as a potential president.

I am also very familiar with the feeling that the Democrats nominated the “wrong” person. I have been politically aware for eight presidential cycles, and the candidate of my choice has won the nomination exactly once.

I would encourage any Democrat who strongly opposes Obama not to box yourself in by declaring now that you’ll never vote for him.

I also hope that Obama supporters will back off and give their fellow Democrats some space. This passage in Hancock’s article seemed particularly important to me:

Jordan Levine, who served as co-president of the Grinnell College Students for Hillary, said he, too, may support McCain in the fall, but has not made up his mind. In addition to not liking where Obama stands on the issues, he also said the actions of his fellow Democrats are turning him off to their nominee.

“They are being belligerent and trying to push me into supporting Obama,” he said. “That should be a serious concern. I have every right to vote how I want.”

Many of us have heard alienating and counterproductive comments from Obama supporters, but don’t give them more power over your decisions than they deserve.

Levine said his indecision on Obama has nothing to do with emotion and everything to do with issues.

“I just don’t like where he stands,” he said. “One of my main issues is health care, and Obama’s plan has some very big differences with Clinton’s.”

Take it from Elizabeth Edwards, who also preferred Clinton’s health care plan to Obama’s: McCain’s health care proposal would be an expensive disaster. Spend a few minutes browsing the writings of nyceve at Daily Kos for more specifics on why McCain is very wrong on health care.

If nothing else, I hope you will keep the Supreme Court in mind when you vote for president. Making the case for John McCain earlier this year, former Republican presidential candidate Gary Bauer noted that six of the nine Supreme Court justices will be at least 70 years old on Inauguration Day 2009. If that’s not a reason to be a yellow dog Democrat this year, I don’t know what is.

I received a fundraising letter from Congressman Leonard Boswell’s campaign recently. It contained a healthy dose of the misleading spin I have come to expect from Boswell’s mailings this year.

I’m not going to retype the whole text, but this passage made me laugh (emphasis is in the original):

My republican opponent has had four months to raise money and plan for the general election; an election that I am only able to focus my attention on now. While I was competing against an opponent for the Democratic nomination, the republicans were getting ready to once again challenge us in this competitive district. This time they have the advantage of a large head start.

Get real. Iowa’s third Congressional district is not on the National Republican Congressional Committee’s list of 2008 targets.

CQ Politics has rated IA-03 “safe Democrat”, in part because the Republicans are not targeting the seat.

The latest Cook Political Report of competitive U.S. House races makes no mention of IA-03, which means that seat is considered safe for the incumbent.

Similarly, IA-03 is nowhere to be found on Swing State Project’s list of competitive U.S. House races.

What about that big “head start” the Republicans supposedly got while Boswell was facing a primary challenge? The most recent Federal Election Commission reporting, based on the May 14, 2008 filings, show that Boswell had raised about $1.16 million this election cycle and had about $709,000 cash on hand.

Republican candidate Kim Schmett had raised about $54,500 so far this year and had just under $33,300 cash on hand.

Let Red Brannan and the others who funded the smear campaign against Ed Fallon replenish Boswell’s campaign coffers.

Democrats in the third district should vote for Boswell in November, but don’t be a sucker–plenty of other Democratic candidates need and deserve your donations more.

Speaking of which, I have given Becky Greenwald $100. Go here if you would like to contribute to her campaign. A strong fundraising number at the end of the second quarter would give her a boost against Tom Latham.

UPDATE: Another worthy candidate is Iowa native Heather Ryan, who is running against a horrible incumbent Republican in Kentucky’s first district. RDemocrat’s latest post on that race is here.

George Eichhorn conceded the GOP Senate primary on Friday, clearing the way for little-known Christopher Reed of Marion to get walloped by Tom Harkin this November.

It had to hurt for Eichhorn. Not only did Reed win by less than 1 percent of the vote, he only barely crossed the 35 percent threshold. If no candidate had won 35 percent of the vote, the Iowa Republican Party’s state convention would have selected the nominee. With his background in the state legislature, Eichhorn would have been the favorite to win among the GOP’s state delegates.

I’m guessing Harkin will spend a lot of time this fall campaigning on behalf of other Iowa Democrats.

A John Edwards supporter who is a delegate to the Iowa Democratic Party’s state convention received this letter from Edwards and posted it on a bloggers’ e-mail loop. She said the letter arrived on Barack Obama letterhead:

June 10, 2008

Dear State Convention Delegates and Alternates:

I want to thank you for all that you have done to support Elizabeth and me over the years. It has been an honor to have your support.

We are now at a critical time in this nominating process. And I know that Barack Obama is a good man who will stand up for what matters for the future of this country. I know he carries the same hope in his heart that you and I do. The hope to make this country better, to end 8 long years of division, and to build one America instead of two.

I am asking you today to join with me in publicly supporting Barack Obama. We need you in this cause and in this movement. I always said that our campaign was not about me — it was about a vision for true change in American and the strength to fight for it.

In their search for a candidate to fulfill this vision, the Democratic voters in America have made their choice — and so have I. Barack Obama is the leader we need, and it’s up to each one of us to make sure we elect him President. I hope that I can count on you to join me in this cause.

Again, many thanks for all your past and continued support.

Sincerely,

John Edwards

The Iowa Democratic Party’s state convention was to have been held today, but it was postponed because of the catastrophic flooding in many parts of the state. Party leaders have rescheduled the event for June 28 in Des Moines.

Edwards delegates were able to form viable groups at four of the five district conventions held in Iowa two months ago, but that was before Edwards endorsed Obama.

David Redlawsk, an Edwards supporter from Iowa City who is also a delegate to the Democratic National Convention, had previously said he would encourage Edwards delegates to stay together at the state convention. Redlawsk explained that although he will vote for Obama at the DNC in Denver, he wants to help get more Edwards supporters chosen as Iowa delegates to the convention.

Though you wouldn’t know it from reading various blogs that support Barack Obama, the Democratic nominee was barely distinguishable from Hillary Clinton on most issues.

TomP reminded me of this in his diary yesterday about Obama choosing “centrist economist Jason Furman as the top economic advisor for the campaign.”

Click the link to learn why labor unions and many progressive organizations, such as Wake Up Wal-Mart and Public Citizen, are “seething” over Obama’s selection of Furman. Among other things, Furman has defended Wal-Mart’s business model and published a 2005 paper labeling Wal-Mart “A Progressive Success Story.”

The Steelworkers’ Union and AFL-CIO are not happy either about Furman’s support for global trade agreements and other writings as head of the Hamilton Project (a centrist economic group started by Bill Clinton’s Treasury Secretary, Robert Rubin).

Some Obama supporters say choosing Hillary Clinton as his running mate would undercut his whole message of getting beyond the 1990s.

Until Obama demonstrates that he is committed to getting beyond Clintonomics, that argument won’t be very convincing.

Obama talked a good game in his speech last week to the Service Employees International Union, but actions speak louder than words. Wall Street and other corporate interests have too much power in the Democratic Party already. Putting Furman in charge of Obama’s economic policy team is a very worrying sign.

By the way, Colin Kahl is still the chairman of Obama’s advisory task force on Iraq:

Kahl is one of the authors of [the Center for a New American Security’s] new report, “Shaping the Iraq Inheritance,” which proposes a policy called “conditional engagement” for Iraq that would leave a large contingent of American forces in Iraq for several years, and which would make America’s presence in Iraq contingent on political progress in Iraq toward reconciliation among the country’s ethnic and sectarian groups and parties.

It’s been two months since reports emerged about Kahl’s support for leaving 60,000 to 80,000 U.S. troops in Iraq at least through the end of 2010. Why won’t Obama fire this guy?

A little bird has told David Yepsen that social conservatives are not happy with Iowa Republican Party chairman Stew Iverson:

Religious conservatives, led by Iowa Christian Alliance president Steve Scheffler, are unhappy that more mainline party leaders, led by state GOP chairman Stewart Iverson, want to install some moderates and big donors, such as Marvin Pomerantz, as delegates to the national convention.

The social conservatives, who have never been very happy with McCain, want delegates to make sure that he selects a vice president who is acceptable to them and that the platform reflects their views on abortion, gay rights and immigration. […]

“If he doesn’t get a huge percentage of our people, John McCain can’t win,” Scheffler said. “It’s simple arithmetic.” In a letter to fellow religious conservatives, Scheffler wrote “there is a very serious threat to our issues and the pro-family agenda. The country club Republicans, which involves some of those in Republican Party leadership positions, are making a concentrated effort to dilute and rid the Republican Party of individuals like you who consider themselves social conservatives.”

His group held a meeting Tuesday night at a Windsor Heights church to plot strategy, and some party leaders showed up uninvited. Some spirited shouting matches ensued, according to several in attendance who said they were surprised at the profanity that got used inside a church building.

I don’t envy McCain the task of choosing a running mate. He needs to pick someone to shore up his support from conservatives, but which conservatives? In last week’s South Dakota primary, McCain only got 70 percent of the GOP vote, with 17 percent favoring Ron Paul and 7 percent favoring Mike Huckabee.

A running mate with a more libertarian bent might prevent Libertarian presidential candidate Bob Barr from taking a lot of votes from McCain in swing states like Nevada. But that wouldn’t help McCain with the religious conservatives who want one of their own on the ticket.

I think McCain can’t choose Huckabee, who is hated by business conservatives and joked at the recent National Rifle Association convention about someone pointing a gun at Barack Obama.

But if McCain chooses some other white southern evangelical as his VP candidate, he may alienate the Ron Paul wing of the party as well as some suburban swing voters.

Some have suggested he should choose a woman, like Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas, or a person of color, like Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal.

Use this as an open thread to discuss which VP candidate would give McCain the best chance of winning, and which VP candidate you’d most like to see him choose.

P.S.- An interesting tidbit from Yepsen’s column is that one of the names being floated as a possible replacement for Iverson is the Iowa blogosphere’s own Real Sporer, aka Polk County Republican chairman Ted Sporer.

UPDATE: At least 14 Republican members of Congress have so far refused to endorse McCain:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008…

Katie Couric stated the obvious, which is that Hillary Clinton had to contend with a lot of sexist media coverage, some of it coming from NBC reporters and commentators.

For that Keith Olbermann calls Couric “the worst person in the world.”

I’ve written before about why Hillary lost the Democratic nomination, and I don’t think sexism was the main reason.

But you have to be blind and deaf not to acknowledge that a lot of sexist coverage and commentary was directed at her, and MSNBC personalities were among the worst offenders:

For a thoughtful analysis of how sexism affected Clinton’s campaign, read this essay by Trapper John.

If you’ve been reading this blog for a while, you know that I have been deeply concerned about Barack Obama’s ability to beat John McCain. I’ve been worried about his weakness in key battleground states such as Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida. I still think the electoral college nightmare scenario outlined by David Yepsen is possible if McCain squeaks by in a few large battleground while Obama runs up a popular vote lead in Democratic strongholds.

But if the last few days are anything to go on, Obama is going to be the favorite this November.

Obama has picked up a decent bounce in tracking polls against McCain since Clinton ended her campaign, and it looks like he is increasing his lead among women. State polls indicate that he is ahead in electoral votes as well as in nationwide polls.

He has taken an important step toward uniting the party by promising to work with Elizabeth Edwards on health care reform. Not only will this excite the Democrats who supported John Edwards, it is a gesture toward Hillary Clinton’s supporters as well. The Clinton and Edwards health care plans were very similar, and this spring Elizabeth Edwards made clear that she preferred Clinton’s plan to Obama’s.

I still think Obama should pick a Clinton loyalist to be his running mate (if not Clinton herself). But if these reports are accurate, it sounds like his VP vetting team is casting a wide net, including some former military leaders.

What has John McCain been doing? Saying on the Today Show that the timing for bringing American troops home from Iraq is “not too important”:

Slinkerwink summarizes the reaction from various prominent Democrats here. The defense coming from the McCain camp is that he didn’t say bringing troops home from Iraq was “not too important,” he said the timeline for bringing them home was “not too important.”

Tell that to the loved ones of troops serving in Iraq right now, especially the families of those who’ve been stop-lossed and are serving their second or third tour.

I’ll be sure to mention to other moms of young kids that McCain doesn’t mind leaving our troops in Iraq indefinitely, as long as U.S. casualties come down. I doubt many mothers relish the thought of their kids growing up to staff permanent U.S. bases in Iraq.

Also for your reading pleasure, Daily Kos user timran brings you McCain’s top ten blow-ups. This is not the temperament you want in your president.

Cross-posted at MyDD, Daily Kos, and the EENRblog. Slightly revised from the version posted at MyDD, thanks to feedback from several thoughtful readers. Note: If Hillary Clinton were the nominee, I would have written a similar diary addressing her volunteers.

This diary is for people planning to volunteer for Barack Obama’s presidential campaign this summer and fall. My goal is to help you be more effective in communicating with voters like me, who don’t care for Obama.

I know that the Obama campaign has scripts and training sessions for its volunteers, and those worked well in the primaries.

Now you have to reach out to Democrats who weren’t buying what Obama was selling in the primaries. It seems to me that many Obama supporters respond in a counter-productive way when they encounter people who are not sold on the candidate.

In this diary, I will offer two basic principles to guide your conversations with non-supporters.

Then I will cover types of comments you may hear from resistant Democrats when you are doing GOTV for Obama. Those are all based on things I have heard people say (not comments I have read on blogs).

I will give examples of what I consider ineffective and constructive responses to those comments.

Follow me after the jump if you care to hear more.  

Thanks to corncam and John Deeth for pointing out omissions in my earlier diary on this topic.

Last year I bristled whenever Hillary Clinton supporters brought up the fact that Iowa and Mississippi are the only two states never to have elected a woman governor or sent a woman to Congress. I understood that they were trying to lower expectations for Hillary in Iowa, and possibly also trying to goad Iowa Democrats into supporting her to “prove” that we aren’t sexist.

But I didn’t like the implication that Iowa Democrats are to blame for our state’s unfortunate record on electing women. We have nominated two outstanding women for governor: Roxanne Conlin in 1982 and Bonnie Campbell in 1994.

State Senator Jean Lloyd-Jones was the Democratic nominee against U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley in 1992.

In addition, we have tried to send women to the U.S House of Representatives many times.

In fact, thanks to Becky Greenwald’s victory in the fourth district primary last Tuesday, Iowa Democrats can proudly say that there isn’t a single district in which we have never tried to send a woman to Congress.

In IA-01, we chose Ann Hutchinson, the former mayor of Bettendorf, to run against Jim Nussle in 2002.

In IA-02, Cedar Rapids doctor Julie Thomas ran against Jim Leach in 2002.

Lynn Cutler ran against Cooper Evans in IA-03 in 1980 and 1982.

Elaine Baxter, then Iowa’s Secretary of State, faced Jim Ross Lightfoot in IA-03 in 1992 and 1994.

Two women have tried to win IA-05 for the Democrats: Sheila McGuire, who ran against Tom Latham in 1994, and Joyce Schulte, who ran against Steve King in 2004 and 2006.

I’ve discussed some of the reasons these women all lost before. Iowa has had a lot of long-serving incumbents, who are always difficult to beat. We have had relatively few open races for Congress, because we keep losing Congressional districts following the census.

Three Democratic women have run for open seats in Congress here. Cutler came close in 1980, but the Reagan landslide was working against her. Baxter came close in 1992, but the redrawn third district had more of a Republican lean. McGuire not only had to compete in the heavily Republican fifth district, but also ran for the open seat in a non-presidential year (when Democratic turnout is always lower).

Meanwhile, Iowa hasn’t experienced some of the circumstances that give an extra boost to a woman candidate. Of the 245 women who have served in Congress, 46 have been widows who directly succeeded their husbands. Happily, we haven’t had any incumbents die in office for many decades.

Nor have our women candidates benefited from other family connections that have helped women get to Congress in some states. Former Kansas Senator Nancy Kassebaum was the daughter of that state’s legendary politician Alf Landon. Representative Stephanie Herseth Sandlin benefited from the fact that many South Dakotans had voted for a Herseth before.

Tuesday was a good day for women candidates here, as John Deeth pointed out in this post. Not only did Greenwald win convincingly in IA-04, Iowa Republicans nominated Mariannette Miller-Meeks for Congress in the second district. She is the first Republican woman nominated for Congress in Iowa in more than 30 years. Deeth informed me that Republicans nominated Sonja Egenes to run against incumbent Neal Smith in the fourth district in 1962. Berkley Bedell beat Joanne Soper in Iowa’s sixth district in 1976 (we lost the sixth district after the 1990 census).

Will 2008 be the year Iowa finally leaves Mississippi behind? As challengers facing incumbents, Miller-Meeks and Greenwald go into the general election as underdogs. The partisan lean of the second district (D+7) will be an additional hurdle for Miller-Meeks, especially in a presidential election year. If Barack Obama has coattails anywhere, it will be in the People’s Republic of Johnson County (the Iowa City area).

Greenwald’s district is evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans (D+0), but she is facing a seven-term incumbent who sits on the House Appropriations Committee.

What do you think? Will Iowa voters make history this year?

If I were Barack Obama, I don’t know whom I would choose for a running mate.

In a typical year, it would be enough to select a VP candidate who balances the ticket, or helps deliver a key state.

This year, with Obama just barely winning the most hard-fought nominating contest in living memory, it is vital for him to choose someone who can unite the party.

Some Clinton supporters think the only way for him to do that is to “throw the Hillary haters under the bus and ask Hillary to be his running mate.”

I am not convinced that Hillary is the best choice for Obama, but she’s far from the worst choice.

It would be much worse for Obama to choose someone who would particularly alienate the very voting blocs that favored Hillary in the primaries.

Two great posts by Natasha Chart make this point better than I can:

Veepness stakes: Please no Webb, DINOs

Veepness stakes: Securing the Clinton bloc

Do click over. These are worth your time.

UPDATE: Longtime Edwards supporter Neil Sinhababu gives you “Ten Good Reasons for an Obama/Edwards ticket.” I’m not sure that would be Obama’s best move, but he could do a lot worse. Edwards has said publicly he’s not interested in running for VP again, though.

SECOND UPDATE: David Yepsen looks at the pros and cons of having Hillary on the ticket and concludes, “Don’t Go There, Obama.”

Anyone out there watch the speech?

Hillary’s internet director Peter Daou posted the text here:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/…

Use this as an open thread to share your thoughts on her concession, prospects for unifying the party, or any other relevant topic.

If you’re one of the people who swore she’d never support Barack Obama, and even falsely claimed (as I saw in countless blog posts elsewhere) that she had “endorsed” McCain over Obama, now would be a good time to apologize to the Clinton supporters you know.

UPDATE: If you’re still nursing a grudge that Clinton didn’t drop out sooner, read this comment Open Left user FuzzyDunlop made a few days ago:

Its also worth keeping in mind (4.00 / 12)

that no candidate with a position nearly as strong as hers (and many with positions much weaker) has not taken the fight to the convention.  I don’t expect Clinton to do that, nor do I think she should.  But people need a reality check.  If she ends up dropping out and not bringing the fight to Denver, that will be a move that is historically unprecedented.  If anything, she should be lauded for not prolonging the fight, as all her forebearers in similar positions have, rather than being skewered at every opportunity for not dropping out sooner or for using her leverage to win some concessions.

Last spring, I donated to John Edwards’ presidential campaign through his page at Act Blue. Yesterday this e-mail arrived in my in-box:

You did it once.

When John Edwards asked for your support, you gave it.

Now we’re asking you to do it again.

Democrats are now in the next round of the fight to win the White House, and we need to work together to guarantee a Democratic victory in November.

We know you care about the Democratic Party, and we want to help you get involved again.

After Barack Obama became the presumptive Democratic nominee on Tuesday night, your fellow Democrats joined the fight for the White House and started fundraising for Obama on ActBlue. On Thursday, the Los Angeles Times cited these new ActBlue pages as “a measure of [Obama’s] power on the Internet.”

Join the legions of Democrats who are already fundraising for Obama.

Become a fundraiser and create a fundraising page.

With the media looking at ActBlue to gauge the strength of Obama’s online support, we need you to get involved now.

Prove that a unified Democratic Party cannot and will not be defeated.

Build a personal fundraising page and ask each of your friends and family members to contribute to the Obama campaign. Build it right here. Ask right now.

From all of us here at ActBlue, thanks.

Erin Hill

Political Director

ActBlue

I’ll be honest I am directing my own giving and fundraising energy this year to several non-profit groups as well as Iowa candidates who need my money more than Obama does.

The Los Angeles Times article linked above notes that Obama already has a cash advantage over John McCain, and that’s before he has tapped many of Hillary Clinton’s major donors.

However, I think this is a great idea for people who are enthusiastic about Obama’s campaign. It probably will generate some good free media for him if thousands of supporters create their own Obama fundraising pages, raising a few hundred bucks from their friends and family.

Also, Act Blue is a great resource for Democratic candidates, so I’m all for supporting their efforts.

If you plan to set up your own fundraising page for Obama, or have already raised money online for candidates, share your expertise in the comments.

“Iowa Blogs Expanding the Majority” is an Act Blue page created by noneed4thneed to raise money for several Democrats running for the Iowa House. Check it out.

Watch this new tv ad for John McCain:

What is he trying to tell us?

Chris Bowers thinks the “McCain campaign is clearly trying to push the age card,” emphasizing his age in order to gain advantage with the huge senior voting bloc in states like Florida and Pennsylvania. Bowers and Marc Ambinder call attention to the visuals in the ad, especially the closing profile photograph, which clearly shows the lines in McCain’s face.

Although McCain may be hoping for a “senior backlash” against Obama, I don’t think that’s what he’s getting at in this ad. Close your eyes and listen to what he is saying, especially the first lines in the ad:

Only a fool or a fraud talks tough or romantically about war. When I was five years old, my father left for war. My grandfather came home from war and died the next day. I was shot down over Vietnam and spent five years as a POW. Some of the friends I served with never came home.

I hate war, and I know how terrible its costs are. I’m running for president to keep the country I love safe. I’m John McCain, and I approved this message.

Gee, who do you think he’s referring to when he says only a fool or a fraud talks tough about war?

The subtext of this ad is clear: McCain is telling us that he understands what war means (unlike Bush), that he has lost family members and close friends in war (unlike Bush), and he is not going to swagger around as president, excited by the prospect of starting more wars.

It sounds as if McCain’s campaign is worried about the public taking him at his word when he said staying in Iraq for 50 to 100 years would be fine by him.

We need to keep reminding Americans that McCain wants permanent U.S. bases in Iraq and has no problem with our troops staying there forever. It also wouldn’t hurt to show clips of his comment from last year: “I’m sorry to tell you, there’s gonna be other wars.”

This You Tube parody from a few months back made the point effectively. Pass it around:

The tag line at the end is classic: McCain 08–Like Hope, but Different.

We all make mistakes, but it’s not every day that someone makes an move which will haunt him for his entire career.

William Meyers confirmed in an interview with Iowa Independent that he plans to run for Congress as an independent. He came in third in Tuesday’s primary in the fourth district with about 13 percent of the vote.

His campaign website has already been reconfigured to promote him as an “independent voice for Iowa”:

The fight isn’t over! A choice between Greenwald and Latham will once again leave the majority of 4th district residents without a voice in Washington, D.C.

The time is long overdue that WE, the majority, have someone just like us representing our best interests instead of the special interests.

Join me after the jump for my take on why this candidacy won’t help anyone, least of all William Meyers.

I don’t watch television, other than the Daily Show and Colbert Report, so I hadn’t realized that John McCain started running ads in Iowa a couple of weeks ago.

Jason Hancock has the story and the YouTubes over at Iowa Independent.

Let him waste his money on tv ads here. Barack Obama had about 40 field offices working this state, while McCain put together virtually no organization during the past year. I am with Mike Glover of the Associated Press; Obama should win this state comfortably in November.

As for McCain’s ads, they focus on domestic issues: tax reform, cheaper energy, affordable and portable health care, and holding “corporate CEOs accountable.”

It shouldn’t be too hard for Obama to make the case that he would do much better on all of those issues than a conservative Republican like McCain.

Senator Tom Harkin has announced who made the second cut in his “Building Blue” contest:

Dear [desmoinesdem]:

After two rounds of voting and several thousands of votes cast, I am proud to announce the top 5 House and top 5 Senate candidates that you voted for to receive $2,000 and advance to the final round.

For the Iowa State House you voted for:  Elesha Gayman D-84, Gretchen Lawyer D-36, Eric Palmer D-75, Mark Smith D-43, and Andrew Wenthe D-18.

For the Iowa State Senate you voted for: Jeff Danielson D-10, Swati Dandekar D-18, Mike Gronstal D-50, Tom Rielly D-38, and Sharon Savage D-40.

Congratulations!

Thanks to your strong support for progressive values, each of these outstanding candidates for the Iowa general assembly will receive a $2,000 contribution and are now eligible to win the grand prize of another $5,000 contribution and a fundraising email.

Please click here to make your voice heard by voting for one of these fine progressive candidates in our final round.

Voting for the final round will be open from now through June 17, so please remember to tell your friends and family and help build Iowa blue by voting for your favorite candidate today.

Thank you for supporting all of the candidates that have participated in our Building Blue contest so far and congratulations to our first money winners!

Sincerely,

Senator Tom Harkin

People, please don’t vote for Mike Gronstal. He does not need more cash for his campaign. In fact, I think it would be a nice gesture for him to donate the $2,000 he receives from Harkin to Democrats facing tough Senate races.

A couple of months ago John Deeth wrote this great feature on the battleground races for Iowa House and Senate.

Of the five Senate candidates remaining in Harkin’s contest, only Dandekar and Rielly are also on Deeth’s list of candidates facing close contests. I recommend voting for one of them in the final round.

Of the five House candidates remaining in Harkin’s contest, Gayman, Lawyer and Palmer are all running in battleground districts, according to Deeth. I would choose one of them in the final round.

To vote, go to http://www.tomharkin.com. You can pick one House candidate and one Senate candidate.