I will write more about the third district primary later this week, but for now I want to say this: challenging Congressman Leonard Boswell was a worthwhile effort.

This race forced Boswell to work a little harder on constituent service. To cite just one example, Windsor Heights is about to get a new zip code, which probably wouldn’t be happening if not for the primary.

More important, this race forced Boswell to move to a better place on several issues of national importance. If not for Ed Fallon, I doubt Boswell would have signed on to a strong global warming bill, and I think he would still be voting for blank checks to fund the war in Iraq.

If not for Fallon, Boswell would in all likelihood not have given this speech during the House debate over the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in March:

Just a few weeks before that speech, Boswell had publicly advocated for granting retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies in the FISA bill.

Will these changes last? Representative Jane Harman (D, CA-36) has a much better voting record since she faced a progressive primary challenger two years ago.

It is too early to say whether Boswell will follow a similar path, or whether he will revert to his earlier voting patterns. I hope that he will think twice about voting with House Republicans on high-profile issues after all of his campaign’s talk about standing up to George Bush and fighting for Democratic values.

I don’t expect any other Democrat to run against Boswell. Although there is a clear opening for someone to run against him from the left (especially if that someone didn’t support Ralph Nader in 2000), most politically ambitious Democrats don’t like to burn bridges with the whole party establishment.

For what it’s worth, a Boswell voter I know, who is much better connected than I am, thinks there may be a Democrat or two who would consider taking on the incumbent in 2010. If the right kind of candidate laid the groundwork for a vigorous challenge early, perhaps Boswell would retire before the next election cycle.

In any event, I am glad that Fallon gave me and 13,000 other third district Democrats a chance to vote for someone who would better represent progressive values in Congress.

Today is the last day to select one Iowa House candidate and one Iowa Senate candidate you’d like to see Harkin give money to this year:

http://www.tomharkin.com/

Bleeding Heartland users advocated for various candidates in this thread:

http://www.bleedingheartland.c…

The gang at Blue Oregon set up this fun poll where you can rank any or all of 32 possible vice-presidential picks for Obama:

http://www.demochoice.org/dcba…

You rank the candidates you support, and you do not have to choose all 32 possibilities. I only voted for my top nine choices.

For an explanation of how instant-runoff voting works, click here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I…

Use this as an open thread to advocate for the VP candidate(s) of your choice.

I think Obama needs to choose someone who will help him 1) win the general, and 2) unite the party. In my opinion, that means either someone who helps in in polls across the board, someone from a crucial swing state, a Clinton loyalist, or Hillary Clinton herself.

Speaking of which, Matt Stoller has made a strong case for Wes Clark as the ideal VP for Obama.

I wrote last week that Congressman Leonard Boswell’s closing argument is “I’m loyal, he voted for Nader.” A radio ad I heard in the car on Monday confirmed that impression.

I couldn’t jot down notes and have been unable to find an audio file of this ad on the web, but I will update this post with that information if someone can send it to me.

The ad used a female voice-over rather than Boswell’s voice. The first part of the ad relayed positive information about the incumbent:

-The teachers have endorsed Boswell because of his work on education.

-The nurses have endorsed Boswell because of his work on health care.

-Working families support Boswell because he stands up for them.

-Al Gore and Tom Harkin are also supporting Boswell.

Then the ad shifts gears with language about how it’s a different story with Ed Fallon. Fallon supported Ralph Nader over Al Gore in 2000. Because Fallon campaigned for Nader instead of Gore, Democrats have been stuck with eight years of President George W. Bush, with a lousy economy and an unending war in Iraq.

All of the above is a paraphrase based on my best recollection. If anyone else has heard this ad (or better yet, has a recording of it), I would love to post a more precise version of its contents.

On one level, I am not surprised that Boswell is talking about Nader in his radio ads, because that is clearly his trump card.

On the other hand, I expected Boswell to stick to all-positive advertising in broadcast media. Typically an incumbent does not go negative on a primary challenger unless there is some concern about the outcome.

By the way, on Saturday and Monday I didn’t receive any direct-mail from either Boswell’s campaign or the anti-Fallon group Independent Voices.

As far as I can tell, the Boswell campaign’s attempt to draw a contrast between Boswell and Fallon regarding methamphetamine got no traction in any Iowa mainstream media. Please correct me if I am wrong, and let me know if you have seen media reports on that issue in the past couple of days.

UPDATE: Boswell’s campaign manager Scott Ourth sent out his final mass e-mail yesterday. I’ve put the full text after the jump.

I live in Iowa House district 59, which includes Windsor Heights, Clive and parts of West Des Moines. Republicans have held this seat since before I was born, but I am convinced that Windsor Heights Mayor Jerry Sullivan has a strong chance to flip this district for the Democrats.

Judging from two calls I received in the past 48 hours, some Republicans are worried about that possibility too.

On Sunday evening I got a robocall from “Survey 2000” claiming to have a brief 30-second survey for me to answer. The first question was whether I planned to vote in the June 3 Democratic primary. The second was whether I planned to vote for Jerry Sullivan or Mark Matel in the primary. Then the push-polling started.

I jotted down what I could with pencil and paper, but the robocall voice went fast, so I don’t have anything close to the verbatim wording of the call.

One question asked whether a candidate’s position on a woman’s right to choose was important, and followed up with some language suggesting that Jerry Sullivan does not support that right.

The next question asked whether I thought elected officials should keep our taxes low, and followed up by saying that Windsor Heights property taxes were very high while Sullivan was mayor.

Finally, there was a question and follow-up information relating to Sullivan’s support for last summer’s Project Destiny referendum, which failed by a huge margin.

This call had all the telltale marks of a push-poll. No demographic information was collected, so the results could not be analyzed in any useful way by a campaign or a public polling firm. Only negative information about one candidate was pushed. In contrast, a legitimate message-testing poll, such as the one commissioned by Congressman Leonard Boswell’s campaign in January, will test positive and negative messages about one or more candidates.

I jotted down the phone number given at the end of the call. It went by fast, but I think I wrote it down correctly: 703-263-2511. I tried to call that number and got only busy signals.

On Monday at about 4:15 pm, I got a different robocall. This was not a fake poll, but it was otherwise similar to the call I received Sunday night.

This time a woman’s voice said she was calling from “Survey 2008” (which was pronounced “Survey two zero zero eight”) with important information about the primary coming up on June 3.

First, she said that Windsor Heights property taxes went from one of the lowest to the second-highest in the Des Moines metro area while Jerry Sullivan was mayor.

Then, she said that Sullivan worked to pass Project Destiny, which was supported by wealthy business interests.

Then, she said Sullivan was believed to support ending a woman’s right to choose an abortion.

The phone number given at the end of this call was 703-263-1908, which probably is a different phone line at the same office that produced the call I got Sunday evening.

First things first: I contacted Sullivan’s campaign manager and confirmed that the candidate is pro-choice. There is no basis for these calls suggesting that he would seek to end a woman’s right to choose. I suspect that they tried that line because Sullivan is Catholic and has a Catholic-sounding name, and they figured this argument would hurt him with Democratic primary voters.

A neighbor called me yesterday to report getting a nasty robocall about Sullivan. When we compared notes, it was obviously the same call. She assumed that Sullivan’s opponent in the Democratic primary, Mark Matel, was behind the call, but my hunch is that these calls were not arranged by any of the rival candidates for this seat.

I doubt that either Matel or Republican Susan Murphy have the resources to fund this kind of operation, even if they wanted to. I assume that Chris Hagenow, the favorite to win the Republican nomination, is focused on winning his primary race, although he may have raised enough money to fund calls like these.

The language on taxes used in both calls suggests to me that a Republican interest group is behind them. Iowans for Tax Relief has endorsed Hagenow, so that group might be a prime suspect. I am sure they would rather not see the relatively inexperienced Hagenow run against someone with Sullivan’s background in business and public service.

It’s also possible that the Iowa Republican Party decided to spend money on roughing up Sullivan in the Democratic primary. Presumably the seat would be easier for Republicans to hold if Sullivan loses the primary, or if they can damage his reputation among the loyal Democratic voters who show up for primaries.

The phone numbers given at the end of the calls should point toward the firm that produced them, but that would not necessarily reveal what candidate or entity paid for the calls.

If you receive calls pushing negative information on any candidate this year, please take as detailed notes as you can. That’s easier when there is a live caller, because you can ask him or her to repeat the questions. Stay on the line until the end of the call and write down the phone number, which they are legally required to give. Then contact the campaign of the candidate being attacked in the call, so they know right away what is going on.

I also encourage Bleeding Heartland users to put up a diary at this blog if you receive any push-poll or obnoxious robocalls this year.

Congressman Leonard Boswell’s campaign put out a press release on Saturday seeking to contrast the incumbent’s record with Ed Fallon’s record on fighting methamphetamine use in Iowa:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE          

May 31, 2008

CONTACT:

Betsy Shelton, 515-238-3356

Boswell Committed to Fighting Iowa’s Meth Crisis

Des Moines, IA – Today Polk County Attorney John Sarcone and Dave Murillo, President of the Des Moines Police Burial and Protective Association, praised Congressman Leonard Boswell for his important work and leadership in fighting Iowa’s methamphetamine crisis.

Boswell thanked Sarcone and Murillo for their support.  “John Sarcone and Dave Murillo are out there fighting the meth epidemic every day.  I will continue to do all I can to help secure funding to provide law enforcement with the proper tools and training to end the manufacture and use of methamphetamine.”

“Congressman Boswell has been a staunch ally and supporter of law enforcement during his tenure in Washington,” said Murillo.  :He is a rarity in politics today as he is man of his word.  Leonard has taken a strong stand against the illegal narcotics trade, and the manufacture, sale and use of illegal drugs.  Leonard has always been a huge supporter of law enforcement and public safety.”

“Congressman Boswell was ahead of the curve on fighting the meth epidemic when he co-founded the Congressional Caucus to Fight and Control Methamphetamine,” stated Polk County Attorney John Sarcone.  “He secured funding for the Drug Endangered Children program which has dramatically helped law enforcement get special services to children whose parents used and manufactured meth in home.”  Sarcone added, “Ed Fallon has never championed any cause for law enforcement. Leonard has always been there for us and his fight against the meth epidemic is a perfect example of his support of law enforcement.”

During his legislative tenure, Fallon opposed appropriations to fight the growing meth epidemic and to establish mandatory jail sentences for persons found in possession of methamphetamine.  Fallon also voted against increased funding for law enforcement in the fight against meth.  He was one of only six House members to vote against a $3.3 million plan to fight Iowa’s meth epidemic with a combination of treatment, education, and tougher enforcement measures.  At the time, Fallon told the Cedar Rapids Gazette, “This bill is the easy way out.”  Fallon was the only House member to oppose an increase in penalties for people manufacturing meth in the presence of a minor.

Congressman Boswell served as co-chair of the Congressional Caucus to Fight and Control Methamphetamine, and has championed legislation that has successfully clamped down on the meth labs that threaten Iowa’s communities.  Boswell has long been a leader in the fight against methamphetamine use.

I was not living in Iowa in 1999, when the legislature approved the $3.3 million bill on methamphetamine. I was unable to find the article quoting Fallon on the Cedar Rapids Gazette’s website. However, when I contacted Fallon’s campaign for a comment on this press release, they forwarded the entire article to me.

Here is a larger excerpt from the Cedar Rapids Gazette article from March 16, 1999:

Detractors of the bill said it will add burden to already overcrowded county jails and courthouses and mask the inadequate response to treatment with get-tough enforcement measures that are easier to tout politically.

“In my very strong opinion, this bill is not going to do it,” said Rep. Ed Fallon, D-Des Moines, one of six representatives to oppose the measure. “This bill is the easy way out. If this legislation is going to be taken seriously, we’re going to have to appropriate quite a bit of money.”

So while the Boswell press release gives the impression that Fallon was not interested in fighting meth use in Iowa, the context makes clear that Fallon opposed the bill because it did not do enough to address the problem.

Did the 1999 legislation solve the meth use problem in Iowa? Apparently not, because a state government report issued in October 2004 determined that “Methamphetamine has become an increasing problem in Iowa over the last 10 years.”

Since that 1999 bill was enacted, the Iowa legislature has addressed methamphetamine several more times. The most significant effort seems to be Senate File 169, which passed the legislature unanimously in 2005. Instead of increasing the penalties for manufacturing meth, that law sought to restrict access to a component used in manufacturing meth. State Drug Policy Coordinator Marvin L. Van Haaften reported to the legislature the following year,

Senate File 169-unanimously approved last year by the Legislature, signed into law by Governor Vilsack, and implemented May 21, 2005-classified the key ingredient used to make methamphetamine (meth) as a Schedule V Controlled Substance. Commonly referred to as Iowa’s pseudoephedrine (PSE) control or meth lab reduction law, this statute removed all cold and allergy products containing PSE from store shelves and placed the vast majority of them behind the pharmacy counter to be dispensed on a controlled non-prescription basis.

Between June and December 2005, Iowa meth lab incidents plummeted nearly 80 percent compared to the same period in 2004, as shown in the month-by-month comparisons from the Iowa Department of Public Safety, Division of Narcotics Enforcement below.

[…]

The imprint of Senate File 169 on public safety may be summed up best by one of the State’s top prosecutors. United States Attorney for the Northern District of Iowa-Charles Larson-has stated publicly that in his many years of public service in the criminal justice arena he’s “never seen one law have a larger impact on reducing crime.”

It’s certainly worthwhile to reduce the number of meth labs operating in Iowa. But did the 2005 law reduce meth use or meth addiction in this state?

Not according to the state drug policy coordinator’s 2006 report:

Verbatim drug treatment survey comments:

• “Our meth clients have large numbers of special needs that overwhelm our case managers…Treatment is taking longer because of reduced cognitive ability, which needs to be addressed in order to obtain participation in the treatment process.”

• “The number of female clients reporting meth usage has increased.”

• “Our available data indicate no substantial change in the areas outlined in this survey since the pseudoephedrine control law has been in effect.”

• “I have actually had clients tell me that the law has impacted the ability to make meth in northeast Iowa, and therefore the availability.”

• “The State must understand that while the new law regulating the purchase of pseudoephedrine has worked to reduce the number of meth labs in the State, the incidence and prevalence of meth abuse continues to rise. This is not a failure of the law, but the realities of the epidemic.”

All signs point toward a continued strong demand for meth in Iowa. At best, meth use appears to be holding steady at a relatively high level. At worst, more Iowans are getting hooked on this super-addictive stimulant.

Sounds like Fallon was right in 1999, when he called for allocating more resources to treating methamphetamine addicts.

Here is a link to a pdf file containing Marvin L. Van Haaften’s report from January 2006.

Iowa Voters has an important post up reminding us that Iowans can register to vote right at the polling place on primary day.

If you know people who are not planning to vote this Tuesday because they are not registered, or have moved since the last time they voted or caucused, be sure to let them know that they can still participate in the primaries. Iowa Voter writes:

These late registrations have tougher rules because you must prove your identity and residence in the precinct. Use your driver’s license or other government-issued photo id card. If the card shows an incorrect address, you can use other documents to establish your address: your lease, utility bill, bank statement, government document, or paycheck that shows your address.

Use this information to help get out the vote for the candidate of your choice.

Click the link to read how Iowans can also register on election day by having an already registered voter in the precinct vouch for them. I wouldn’t gamble on every polling place worker understanding this aspect of the law, though.

Ed Fallon’s campaign sent out a press release on Friday highlighting points he made in a resolution he offered as a member of the Iowa House before the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003.

Click here to read House Resolution 17, which Fallon offered and 20 other Iowa House Democrats co-sponsored. The resolution didn’t go anywhere; Republicans controlled the chamber in 2003.

Here is the release from the Fallon campaign:

Before the War, Fallon Took Lead Against Invading Iraq

Friday, May 30, 2008 (4:30 PM CDT) – Today, Ed Fallon reiterated that the war in Iraq is one of the main reasons he decided to challenge Congressman Boswell. Boswell voted for the war and continued to vote to fund it until last year. Fallon said, “Congressman Boswell says in his mailers that he’s standing up to George Bush to end the war. But where was he most of the past five years?”

In stark contrast, while serving as a State Representative in 2003, Ed Fallon authored HR 17 to encourage the President not to initiate a preemptive, unilateral military strike against Iraq. Fallon was joined by 20 other Democrats who co-sponsored the resolution.

Fallon claimed he had it right, stating in HR 17 that the war would:

   * Undermine our efforts to bring Osama bin Laden to justice. Bin Laden remains at large.

   * Destabilize the region. Iran has only grown in influence as a result of the war.

   * Turn into a humanitarian disaster. Iraqi civilians have suffered greatly throughout the war.

   * Lead to a long-term military presence in Iraq. U.S. troops have now been in Iraq longer than they were engaged in WWII.

   * Cause America to bear most of the financial cost of the war, which we have.

   * Cost between $100 billion and $1 trillion, and we are now almost at a trillion dollars.

   * Cost us $15-$20 billion per year. That was a conservative estimate: the actual cost is about $12 billion a month, or $144 billion a year.

   * Cause deeper federal budget deficits, further weakening the economy and undermining of the long-term prospects for solvency the Social Security and Medicare systems.

Fallon says, “Those who voted for this war had it wrong on so many levels. They were duped by President Bush’s propaganda machine and failed to understand how the war would cripple our economy, leave thousands dead or injured, and polarize our nation. Congress needs leaders who are able to think critically before similar mistakes are made in the future.”

Before the Iowa caucuses, Barack Obama’s presidential campaign widely distributed the text and the DVD of the speech he gave in October 2002 opposing pre-emptive war in Iraq.

It makes sense for Fallon to emphasize this point in light of Congressman Leonard Boswell’s campaign communications that say the incumbent is “working every day” to end the war and bring the troops home.

The question is how many Democratic voters will hear this message from the Fallon campaign. This is where the resources for district-wide direct mail or television ads would have come in handy.

Fallon was scheduled to be at the downtown Des Moines farmer’s market all morning today. (More than 10,000 people attend that market on a typical Saturday.) I have another commitment today, but if you saw Fallon’s booth at the market, please post a comment to let us know what kind of campaign literature was being distributed. Did they have anything focusing on his early opposition to the Iraq War?

Wow, I never knew Red Brannan, one of the developers who would like to see a four-lane beltway constructed in rural northeast Polk County, was so mad when Ed Fallon voted against residency restrictions for sex offenders in 2002.

But that vote must have really gotten Brannan riled up, because today I got another direct-mail piece on the issue from the 527 group Independent Voices. On Tuesday a similar mailer arrived from the same group, which I transcribed here. Matt Stoller put a scanned image of the earlier mailer up at Open Left.

Today’s mailer has a large photo of an empty child’s swing, next to these words in large print:

Would you want a sex offender living near your kid’s school?

At the bottom in small print it says, “Paid for By Independent Voices, Red Brannan Chair.” Hey, at least there’s a union bug next to that line!

On the flip side the same photo of an empty swing appears faintly. There’s a smaller picture of Fallon near the bottom of the page, holding up one finger, as if lecturing. These words appear on the page:

Ed Fallon put kids at risk simply to make a political statement

When Ed Fallon had the chance to stop convicted sex offenders from living near our schools, he thought it was more important to make a political statement than to protect our kids. He cast the only vote against this prohibition in the state house.

Our kids have enough challenges, why would Ed let these predators live next to our schools?

Associated Press   October 14, 2005

Fallon concedes he is the only lawmaker who opposed the restrictions.

“There was a fear that if we don’t support this bill we’ll be viewed as weak on crime.”

Call Ed at 515.277.0424

Tell Ed our kids are more important than his politics. As him to oppose letting convicted sex offenders live near our schools.

The hypocrisy of this mailing is breathtaking. As I mentioned in the post about the previous mailer on this subject, residency restrictions for sex offenders do nothing to reduce crimes against children–prosecutors and children’s advocates agree on this point. The proponents of these laws are the ones who would rather “make a political statement” than protect our kids.

The Des Moines Register’s editorial board described the earlier mailer from Independent Voices as “the cheapest of cheap shots.”

This letter to the editor, published today, made several great points as well:

The 2,000-foot law was passed as a knee-jerk reaction to high-profile abuse cases. The result has been a drop in the number of sex offenders registering their address and the creation of rural communities comprising mainly sex offenders. What the law fails to take into account is the fact that only a small minority of sex offenders are playground pedophiles.

About 80 percent of abuse victims knew the offender and 43 percent are relatives. I ask both Fallon and U.S. Rep. Leonard Boswell, along with all other lawmakers, to take the time to develop sensible laws that promote rehabilitation and judge offenses on a case-by-case basis. Sexually active high schoolers shouldn’t be categorized with rapists and punished just as harshly.

– Jade Howser Nagel, Urbandale

The political posturing of the majority of Iowa legislators has drained law enforcement resources and led to fewer sex offenders registering their addresses. That doesn’t keep my two young kids or anyone else’s kids safer, and Red Brannan’s group should know this very well.

Will this mailing scare third district Democrats away from Fallon, or will it backfire? Your guess is as good as mine.

Al Gore has already sent out e-mails and letters raising money for Congressman Leonard Boswell, and now he has a starring role in the direct-mail piece I received today from the Boswell campaign.

I don’t have any problem with Gore campaigning for Boswell.

I do wish Boswell had absorbed the message of Gore’s September 2002 speech on “Iraq and the War on Terrorism.”  

I also wish Boswell had talked with Gore before voting for George Bush’s energy bill in 2005.

Finally, I wish Boswell would have signed on as a co-sponsor of the Safe Climate Act last summer, when many House Democrats did, instead of waiting until December, after he had learned Ed Fallon was planning to run against him.

A description and full transcript of Boswell’s direct-mail piece is after the jump.

I have not seen this ad yet, and I can’t find anything on You Tube or Leonard Boswell’s campaign website, but the Des Moines Register on Wednesday summarized a 30-second television commercial Boswell has started running:

OPPOSITION TO BUSH: Boswell, who is seeking his seventh term, highlights in the ad his opposition to proposed Bush administration spending cuts in college loan programs this year. Boswell, facing a challenge from former state Rep. Ed Fallon of Des Moines, has been criticized by some liberals for supporting some Bush administration proposals.

A LOYAL DEMOCRAT: The ad closes with a narrator saying, “Leonard Boswell, a trusted Democrat, always standing up for you.”

I’ll update this post with the video if someone can send me the link.

Good for Boswell for opposing spending cuts in college loan programs. (If he had been consistently willing to stand up to the Bush administration and the Republican policy agenda, this primary wouldn’t even be happening, but that’s another story.)

Also on Wednesday, I received a direct-mail piece from the Boswell campaign about Ed Fallon’s support for Ralph Nader in 2000. This is the third such mailing the campaign has sent out. The first two hit mailboxes in April, and I transcribed them here and here.

This mailing is similar in design, but it uses a normal font instead of that “scary font” that looks like it came from a ransom note, which appeared in the earlier two Nader mailings.

On one side, there’s a photo of the bottom half of Fallon’s smiling face, and this text (partly in white, partly in Hawkeye gold against a black background):

Ed Fallon opposed Al Gore in 2000

“If I had three hands maybe I could hold my nose, my gut and my mouth and vote for Al Gore. But in good conscience, I can’t, I won’t, and you shouldn’t either.”

(New York Times, 10/29/2000)

Fallon supported Ralph Nader instead…

The other side has large photos of Fallon’s and Nader’s faces next to each other. The text reads:

Ed Fallon Let Iowa Democrats Down by Endorsing Ralph Nader

Ed Fallon claims to be a real Democrat, but in 2000 he helped elect George Bush by endorsing and actively campaigning for Ralph Nader.1 The Bush presidency has been a disaster. We are mired in a War with no exit strategy and have an economy in recession with rising costs that are hurting Iowans. Ed Fallon now says it was a mistake, but his judgment let Iowa Democrats and our nation down–how can we trust him to represent our values in Congress?

1 Des Moines Register, 1/25/01, 11/18/00, 10/31/00

Enough Phony Politics. Say NO to Ed Fallon.

For several weeks a photo of Gore along with a quote supporting Boswell have been prominently featured on the front page of Boswell’s campaign website.

I’ve been saying all year that Nader is a strong card for Boswell to play, because it’s the only way for this incumbent who has repeatedly voted with Republicans and corporate interests to cast himself as a more loyal Democrat than Fallon.

I know people who are voting for Boswell solely because of Nader.

That said, many Gore voters like myself have decided that this isn’t a deal-breaker, in light of Boswell’s voting record.

I have no idea whether a third Nader mailing will push additional voters into Boswell’s camp. By now everyone politically active knows about this issue.

Final, unrelated point: Marc Hansen’s latest column on Boswell’s refusal to debate is funny.

The day after I received a misleading hit piece on Ed Fallon, a second mailer from the 527 group Independent Voices arrived in the mail.

This one shows a cornfield on one side, with these words in large print:

Why Doesn’t Ed Fallon

Support Iowa’s

Ethanol Industry?

At the bottom of that side, it says, “Paid for By Independent Voices, Red Brannan Chair”

The other side has corn kernels in the background, as well as a photo of Fallon and a graphic of a container for gasoline with corn flowing out of the spout. The text on this page says,

CORN

Helping Us Become Independent of Foreign Oil

Iowa’s ability to produce corn efficiently has helped us become the national leader for ethanol production.

Alternative fuels are one way to end our dependence on Middle East oil. Ending that oil dependence could also revitalize Iowa’s economy if we are able to continue our national leadership in alternative fuel production.

So why did Ed Fallon say he wouldn’t support subsidies for ethanol production right here in Iowa?

Call Ed at 515.277.0420

Tell Ed Fallon he should quit supporting policies that cost us money at the pump.

Of course, this direct-mail piece doesn’t tell the whole story. Many people think subsidies to support corn-based ethanol production are no longer needed. Fallon advocates moving toward producing ethanol from cellulosic sources other than corn, and there are strong arguments in favor of doing so.

I mentioned in my earlier post that Fallon’s position on other issues (besides the ones mentioned in these mailers) run counter to the interests of Brannan, a developer.

If anyone has information about other donors who are funding the Independent Voices group, please either put up a comment in this thread or e-mail me confidentially at desmoinesdem AT yahoo.com.

UPDATE: The fliers sent by Independent Voices are discussed in this article from Thursday’s Des Moines Register:

Fallon supports ethanol subsidies, although he has said corn-based ethanol is not a permanent solution to weaning the United States off imported petroleum. “Corn-based ethanol is a step in the right direction, but it’s not the end of that journey,” Fallon said.

The mailers list the group’s chairman as Red Brannan, an Ankeny Democrat and former member of the Polk County Board of Supervisors. Aides to Boswell said Brannan has not made financial contributions to the campaign. Attempts to reach Brannan Wednesday evening were unsuccessful.

I believe that Brannan has not donated directly to Boswell’s campaign, because I couldn’t find his name when I searched for it at Open Secrets.

Remember, a person can make unlimited donations to a group like Independent Voices, whereas contributions to a Congressional campaign are capped at $2,300 for the primary and $2,300 for the general election.

The Des Moines Register’s editorial board slammed the first mailing from Independent Voices as “the cheapest of cheap shots” and has called on Boswell to reject the tactics used by Brannan’s group.

Last week I told you about Senator Tom Harkin’s contest to determine which Iowa House and Senate candidates will receive campaign donations from him.

Anyone can sign up at his website and vote for their favored candidates (though as

John Deeth noted, Harkin has excluded a few candidates who are challenging Democratic incumbents).

Today Harkin sent out this mass e-mail announcing the first-round winners:

After over a week of voting and thousands of votes cast on TomHarkin.com for Iowa’s best and brightest progressive leaders, I am proud to announce the top 20 House candidates and the top 10 Senate candidates.

For the Iowa State House you nominated:  Tom Avenarius (D-32), McKinley Bailey (D-9), Cayle Baresel (D-17), Frank Best (D-87), Ron Fedler (D-91), Gene Ficken (D-23), Elesha Gayman (D-84), Tim Hoy (D-44), Kurt Hubler (D-99), Gretchen Lawyer (D-36), Larry Marek (D-89), Chris Nelson (D-58), Eric Palmer (D-75), Matthew Pfaltzgraf (D-70), Mark Smith (D-43), TJ Templeton (D-3), James Van Bruggen (D-4), Pat Van Zante (D-71), Andrew Wenthe (D-18), Nate Willems (D-29).

For the Iowa State Senate you nominated: Randy Braden (D-20), Swati Dandekar (D-18), Jeff Danielson (D-10), Mike Gronstal (D-50), Mary Jo Wilhelm (D-8), Pam Jochum (D-14), Tom Rielly (D-38), Sharon Savage (D-40), Steve Sodders (D-22), Frank Wood (D-42).

The level of enthusiasm you displayed in the nominating round of our “Building Blue” competition shows that Iowa Democrats are fired up and have the energy we need to win in November.

Now the fun part of our competition really gets under way.

Starting today and ending Tuesday, June 3rd, you and your friends and family can click here to vote for your favorite candidate.

The top 5 vote getters from the House and Senate will each receive a $2,000 donation for their campaigns.

These 10 finalists will then advance to the final round, starting June 4, where you will then pick the winner of a $5,000 contribution.

Thank you for supporting these legislative candidates and congratulations to all of these leaders for their service to the people of Iowa.

Be sure to visit www.TomHarkin.com today to vote for your favorite candidate in the second round.  And let’s continue building Iowa blue for November.

Sincerely,

Senator Tom Harkin

If you plan to vote for any candidates for the second round, I urge you not to select Democrats in safe seats. For instance, Mike Gronstal does not need any extra money from Harkin to get re-elected.

Please choose either candidates trying to win Republican seats, incumbents who are being targeted by the GOP, or candidates trying to hold seats vacated by retiring Democrats.

You can use this comment thread to make the case for the candidates you’re supporting.

No time for a long post now, but you can read the Des Moines Register’s endorsement of Becky Greenwald here.

I had a feeling they would go that way.

Let’s try to keep it civil, people. The editorial board had nice things to say about all the candidates.

If anyone attends tonight’s candidate forum in Ames, please put up a diary afterwards.

When the Des Moines Register headlined its endorsement of Ed Fallon “Unleash Fallon’s Energy in Congress,” it reminded me that I have not yet transcribed the Fallon campaign’s main piece of literature.

Chase Martyn suggested today that Fallon’s campaign has “spent more on printing its glossy, full-color brochures than it probably should have, considering it has not yet sent out districtwide direct mail.” That may be true, but Fallon volunteers and staffers have been handing out this 11 by 16-inch tri-fold while canvassing or tabling at public events for months. Thousands of Democrats in the district would have received it by now.

After the jump I’ve transcribed the brochure that lays out the central arguments of the Fallon campaign.

An 8 1/2 by 11 direct-mail piece arrived in the mail today from a 527 group called Independent Voices. On one side there’s a big photo of a man in an orange jump suit labeled “PRISONER,” who is looking through a chain-link fence at a group of children. The text reads

Why Does Ed Fallon Think It’s O.K. For Sex Offenders to Live Near Schools?

Ed Fallon voted to allow sex offenders to live within 2,000 feet of our schools and day care centers

At the bottom in small print it says, “Paid for by Independent Voices, Red Brannan Chair”

The other side has the same photo of the prisoner, with a large photo of Ed Fallon and the following text superimposed:

Fallon Cast the Only Vote To Allow Sex Offenders to Live Near our Schools

Associated Press      October 14, 2005

Fallon concedes he is the only lawmaker who opposed the restrictions.

“There was a fear that if we don’t support this bill we’ll be viewed as weak on crime.”

Parents know how many challenges kids face after they leave the house for school. Ed Fallon thought it was more important to cast his vote to make a political statement than to cast a vote that protects our kids from these dangerous predators. That’s not the help our kids need.

Call Ed at 515.277.0424

Tell Ed that sex offenders shouldn’t be living next to our schools.

First, it’s important to note that Red Brannan is a developer who disagrees with Fallon’s stands on reducing urban sprawl and curbing abuses of eminent domain. Brannan and many other developers would like to see a four-lane beltway constructed through a rural area in northeast Polk County. Boswell is committed to seeking federal funding for this project, which would require hundreds of millions of dollars in public spending. Fallon opposes the northeast Polk County beltway for various reasons; it’s a bad use of federal transportation dollars and would be bad for the environment as well.

But let’s take this mailer at face value and assume that Red Brannan and the rest of the financial backers of this 527 group really are bent out of shape over Fallon’s vote on the sex offender residency restriction law.

There are two kinds of laws: those that address a problem, and those that give a politically convenient appearance of addressing a problem.

At least 22 states have barred sex offenders from living within a certain distance of schools, but it’s misleading to suggest that those laws do anything to protect children from predators:

But residency restrictions for sex offenders not only don’t seem to be working as promised, there’s some indication that by hindering smarter practices they help increase the danger of molestation. And despite their popularity with lawmakers and the public, they have not been universally embraced, even by those in the law enforcement community. A January 2007 resolution passed by the American Correctional Association declares, “There is no evidence to support the efficacy of broadly applied residential restrictions on sex offenders.” A 2006 statement issued by the Iowa County Attorneys Association on that state’s residency restriction requirements takes a similar view, asserting, “There is no demonstrated protective effect of the residency requirement that justifies the huge draining of scarce law enforcement resources in the effort to enforce the restriction.”

Got that? They do nothing to reduce crimes against children and drain resources away from law enforcement.

Not only that, prosecutors and advocates for missing and exploited children agree on the uselessness of such laws:

In Iowa, which in 2002 became one of the first states to impose residency restrictions, police and prosecutors have united in opposition to the law, saying that it drives offenders underground and that there is “no demonstrated protective effect,” according to a statement by the Iowa County Attorneys Association, which represents prosecutors.

“The law was well-intentioned, but we don’t see any evidence of a connection between where a person lives and where they might offend,” said Corwin R. Ritchie, executive director of the group.

Enforcing the law consumes lots of law enforcement time, he said, and leads some offenders to list interstate rest stops or Wal-Mart parking lots as their addresses.

“Our concern is that these laws may give a false sense of security,” said Carolyn Atwell-Davis, director of legislative affairs for the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. “We’re not aware of any evidence that residency restrictions have prevented a child from being victimized.”

So while the mailer accuses Fallon of casting his vote “to make a political statement,” the opposite is true: all of the other legislators who voted for this bill were making a political statement rather than doing something real to help protect children and support law enforcement efforts.

One reason Fallon is so unpopular with the legislative leadership is that he refused to go along with this kind of phony “solution” when he was in the Iowa House.

The irony is that in its endorsement of Fallon, the Des Moines Register mentioned this very vote as an example of how he was “frequently on the right side of issues.” The editorial board noted that the residency restriction has driven up costs for law enforcement while making it more difficult for them to track sex offenders.

But I’m not surprised that a group of Boswell backers resorted to this misleading line of attack. Anything that diverts voters’ attention from Boswell’s voting record, which is out of step with the Democrats he represents, can’t be bad for the incumbent.

I have no idea whether this mailer will significantly increase support for Boswell or whether it will primarily make Fallon’s supporters that much more determined to get out the vote.

No time for a long post now, but you can read the Register’s endorsement of Fallon here.

The same editorial board that picked Hillary Clinton because of her experience and knowledge of the issues wasn’t impressed by Leonard Boswell.

Time for new energy in Congress.

The Register will endorse a candidate in the fourth district primary tomorrow.

I don’t think Barack Obama will pick John Edwards as a running mate (the endorsement came too late for that), and I would probably rather see Edwards in a cabinet position with real authority than as a ribbon-cutter for Obama.

However, Open Left contributor Paul Rosenberg disagrees and has written three lengthy diaries making the case for Edwards as the best possible pick for Obama.

If you are interested, here are the links to the three diaries. Rosenberg explains his main thesis here:

This is not an “Edwards for VP” candidate diary series.  But it is a very candid look at why Edwards makes a strong choice, the better to discuss the underlying forces at play.  The foundations of my argument comes from two different diaries Chris wrote, years apart.  The first-discuissed in this diary-concerns the need for connecting Democratic Party liberalism with a more non-idelogical reform tradition.  The second-discussed in the next diary-concerns the logic a reinforcing VP pick.  After discussing those two diaries, I’ll review some recent polling data that shows Edwards as a very strong VP pick for Obama.

The Deep Logic of Edwards for VP–Part 1

Part 1 goes over “the need to supplement the Democratic base with an appeal to those who were non-ideological in the traditional liberal/conservative sense, but rather, were ideologically committed to reforming government to make it more responsive to the people.”

The Deep Logic of Edwards for VP–Part 2

The main argument of part 2 is that Edwards would be the best person to “reinforce” the ticket (as opposed to balancing the ticket).

The Deep Logic of Edwards for VP–Part 3

Part 3 has a lot of polling data to support Rosenberg’s argument.

For some reason, I occasionally receive mass mailings from the Iowa Republican Party. Usually I toss these in the recycling bin without reading them, but for some reason I opened the latest one, which arrived this week.

It was a letter from state chairman Stew Iverson, who urged me to make a donation and thereby become an “official Member” of the party. He even enclosed a personalized membership card for me.

I won’t bother transcribing the whole letter, because it was the usual GOP language about big, bad, liberal Democrats and their social programs, “bloated budgets” and higher taxes that will take away your hard-earned money.

One line jumped out at me. It is underlined in the letter, but I can’t figure out how to make it underlined here:

It’s time to join together and stop the Democrats from gaining more seats in 2008!

Is that the best they’re hoping for?

Can’t they even pretend to their own supporters that the goal is retaking the Iowa House and Senate for the GOP? There is nothing in the letter suggesting that my donation will help put Republicans back in power. There is nothing about the positive agenda the Republicans would enact if they regained control of the legislature. It is all about trying to limit the damage Democrats can do.

In case you had any doubts, know that Iowa Republicans are still downbeat about their election prospects. It seems like not much has changed since a prominent Republican told the Des Moines Register in January:

“We’ll be lucky with anything we get this year,” said Steve Roberts, a Republican National Committee member from Des Moines. “I don’t think there are a lot of people with high expectations this year. It’s a long road back for us this time.”

Don’t be complacent. Get involved in a statehouse race. If your district is not competitive, volunteer for a Democrat in another district that is up for grabs, or at least donate to one or more candidates you believe in.

I’ll be helping Jerry Sullivan take House district 59 for the Democrats. Republicans have represented my district since before I was born, and it’s time for that to change.  

The pundit class and blogosphere are in full-blown hyperventilation mode because Hillary Clinton alluded to the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy in June 1968.

True to their habit of ascribing the most evil motives possible to everything Hillary does, some people are assuming that she made the comment because of an expectation or “morbid fantasy” that something terrible will happen to Barack Obama.

Take a step back and look at what she said in her meeting with the Sioux Falls Argus Leader editorial board:

HRC: … You know, I have been willing to do all of that during the entire process, and people have been trying to push me out of this ever since —

Q: Why?

HRC: I don’t know, I don’t know.  I find it curious, because it is unheard of in history.  I don’t understand it.  And you know, between my opponent and his camp and some in the media, there has been this urgency to end this.  And, you know, historically that makes no sense.  So, I find it a bit of a mystery.

Q: You don’t buy the party unity argument?

HRC: I don’t.  Because, again, I’ve been around long enough – you know, my husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June.  Right?  We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California.  You know, I just – I don’t understand it, and, you know, there’s a lot of speculation about why it is.  But —

Q: What’s your speculation?

HRC: You know, I don’t know.  I find it curious.  And I don’t want to attribute motives or strategies to people who I don’t really know …

Though I wouldn’t have recommended using that analogy, it seems clear to me that Hillary was referring to the fact that RFK was still campaigning (not having wrapped up the nomination) in June at the time of his assassination.

Many bloggers, including Iowa’s own John Deeth, are mad that Hillary didn’t reference different historical events, such as the Democratic nominating contest in 1972 or the Republican one in 1976. Deeth is convinced that she must have been voicing “a subconscious wish to whack a rival.”

None of us are mind-readers. It’s a sad day when so many Democrats are quick to assume the worst about the Clintons. If I want to hear why everything Hillary does reflects her malicious desires, I can turn on some right-wing radio show.  

And for those who claim Hillary is too smart and politically astute to make any comment by accident, think about it: Does it make sense that Hillary would expect to gain political advantage from mentioning RFK’s assassination?

Isn’t it obvious to anyone who has been watching this campaign that such a comment would cause a firestorm of outrage that would benefit Obama politically?

I am giving Clinton the benefit of the doubt. While explaining that it is historically not unusual for a presidential campaign to go on until the summer, she used unfortunate words. We all make mistakes.

Frankly, I am more bothered by the recent comments of Hillary’s chief fundraising official, businessman Hassan Nemazee:

“There’s a desire on the part of the party to come together under any circumstances, and Hillary and her supporters will do everything in their power to help Obama win, should he become the nominee, whether or not she’s on the ticket,” Nemazee said to me this morning.

“But there’s a risk that if she isn’t invited on the ticket, Hillary’s political and financial supporters may not feel compelled to be as integrated and involved in the Obama campaign in order to provide the maximum support that he’ll need to prevail in November.”

To paraphrase Fat Albert, this guy is like school in the summertime–no class.

On one level, he is just stating the obvious: Hillary’s supporters will be more active in Obama’s campaign if she is on the ticket, the same way John Edwards’ supporters became more enthusiastic about John Kerry.

But I don’t care for the thinly-veiled threat to withhold financial support from Obama. This was no slip of the tongue. This was a clear hint that Obama will pay a price if he doesn’t pick Clinton for vice-president.

The Clinton camp should not be making this argument. They can provide other reasons for choosing Hillary as VP without making threats.

I also agree with TomP, who wrote yesterday that this kind of pressure is counter-productive if your goal is to get Obama to pick Hillary:

Hillary Clinton would not be my first choice for VP, but that is up to Obama.  The problem she is creating now, however, is that attempts to blackmail Obama in to giving her the VP nomination, which is how I read Mr.  Nemazee’s comments, push Obama into a position where he must refuse her.

If Clinton threats pushed Obama into offering her the VP, he could easily be attacked as “weak” and unable to stand up to Hillary.  Think how McCain and his surrogates would use that.

For the record, I wouldn’t advise Obama to offer Hillary the VP slot, and I wouldn’t advise Hillary to accept it if offered.  

Ben Smith put up a post about Barack Obama’s prominent early supporters, who came on board when he was seen as having little chance of beating Hillary Clinton. Here is his list:

Senator Richard Durbin

Former Majority Leader Tom Daschle

Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller

Oprah Winfrey

Iowa Treasurer Mike Fitzgerald

Former Iowa Democratic Party Chairman Gordon Fischer

Ted Sorensen

Virginia Governor Tim Kaine

Alabama Rep. Artur Davis

New Hampshire Rep. Paul Hodes

It’s easy to forget now that Gordon Fischer was on the fence between Clinton and Obama for some time last summer. He told the story of how Obama’s campaign hooked him in an interview with New Yorker journalist Ryan Lizza:

Obama, who had sometimes seemed to eschew the details of campaigning which Clinton appears to revel in, has become more enmeshed in the state’s idiosyncratic politics. Consider the conquest of Gordon Fischer, a former chairman of the Iowa Democratic Party. Every campaign wanted Fischer’s endorsement, but the Obama campaign pursued him relentlessly. At a recent lunch at the Des Moines Embassy Club, a restaurant on the forty-first floor of the tallest building in the state, Fischer explained how Obama’s Iowa operatives used his closest friends to persuade him to back Obama. One, Lola Velázquez-Aguilú, managed to decorate part of Fischer’s house with photographs of Obama that featured thought bubbles asking for Fischer’s endorsement. (“Has anyone told you how great you look today?” an image of Obama taped to a mirror said. “So, are you ready to sign a supporter card?”) When Obama staffers learned that the late Illinois senator Paul Simon was a hero of Fischer’s, they asked Simon’s son-in-law, Perry Knop, to call Fischer and make the case for Obama. At one point, Obama himself invited Fischer onto his campaign bus and told him that he had to stay aboard until he agreed to an endorsement. When Fischer insisted that he had to make the decision with his wife, Monica, Obama demanded Monica’s cell-phone number, and he called her at once. “Monica, this is Barack Obama,” he said when her voice mail came on. “I’m with your husband here, and I’m trying to go ahead and close the deal for him to support my candidacy. . . . Discuss it over with your man. Hopefully we can have you on board.” The Fischers were sufficiently impressed to endorse him, two weeks later. “I think the Iowa campaign has been run better than the national campaign,” Fischer said.

When I read Lizza’s article last November, I showed that passage to my husband, who remarked, “That’s actually a really good argument for scrapping the caucuses.” I’m sure that wasn’t Fischer’s intention, though!

But I digress.

Ben Smith’s post reminded me that I’ve been meaning to put up a poll about which candidate had the best celebrity supporters.

For the purposes of this diary, I am focusing on celebrities who publicly endorsed or campaigned for a candidate. Lists of famous donors can be deceiving, since many rich and famous people give large sums to multiple candidates:

Actor Michael Douglas, for example, has contributed to five current and former Democratic presidential candidates. As of Sept. 30, the latest reports available, he had donated the maximum $4,600 $2,300 for the primary campaign and $2,300 for the general election to Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama, Bill Richardson and Chris Dodd, and $1,500 to Dennis Kucinich.

[…]

Another serial donor in the current election is Paul Newman, who gave the maximum contribution to Obama, Clinton, and Dodd, and $2,300 to Richardson.

Some donors have spread the wealth around but have decided to back one candidate. Barbra Streisand gave $2,300 each to Clinton, Edwards and Obama, and $1,000 to Dodd, but recently endorsed Clinton for president.

[…]

Steven Spielberg and Rob Reiner are two other celebrities who donated to multiple presidential candidates four a piece before settling on Clinton. Reiner also shot a spoof video for Clinton’s Web site.

Actress Mary Steenburgen gave money to both Edwards and Clinton, but has backed Clinton, a friend for three decades, from the get-go. Steenburgen, a native of Newport, Ark., met the Clintons when Bill Clinton was in his first term as governor of Arkansas.

Last month the Huffington Post published this piece on the top ten celebrities for Clinton and Obama. Here is their list for Obama:

1. Oprah

2. will.i.am

3. the Kennedy women (Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg and Maria Shriver)

4. Ben Affleck

5. George Clooney

6. Scarlett Johansson

7. Samuel L. Jackson

8. Chris Rock

9. Robert De Niro

10. Jennifer Aniston

At least I have heard of these people. When I first saw will.i.am’s “Yes We Can” video, I swear that the only person I recognized was Kareem Abdul Jabbar.

HuffPo’s list of top ten Clinton supporters:

1. Ellen DeGeneres

2. Elton John

3. Ted Danson and Mary Steenburgen

4. Jack Nicholson

5. Natalie Portman

6. Mario Lavandeira (I never heard of him, but apparently he is the celebrity blogger Perez Hilton)

7. America Ferrera (star of “Ugly Betty”)

8. Magic Johnson

9. Barbra Streisand

10. Eva Longoria Parker (star of “Desperate Housewives”)

The list of other famous people who have donated to Obama or Clinton is of course very long. I know that Bruce Springsteen and Tom Hanks are also public Obama supporters. If I’ve left out celebrities who played an important public role in either candidate’s campaign, please let me know in the comments.

John Edwards: A bunch of big Hollywood names donated to his campaign, but most of them did not play any public role, and many also gave money to other Democratic candidates.

I was fortunate enough to see one of the mini-concerts Bonnie Raitt and Jackson Browne did for Edwards in Iowa last November. They also campaigned for him in New Hampshire. Tim Robbins came to early-voting states to stump for Edwards as well. I heard from a friend who saw Robbins in Des Moines that his first comment to the crowd was, “I’m not Oprah.” Ben “Cooter” Jones, former Congressman and star of the tv show “Dukes of Hazzard,” also campaigned for Edwards in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.

UPDATE: I can’t believe I forgot that Madeleine Stowe, Kevin Bacon, and James Denton (of “Desperate Housewives” fame) also came to Iowa to help out Edwards. In addition, Danny Glover and Harry Belafonte endorsed Edwards. Jon Mellencamp not only supported Edwards, he also invited him on stage during a concert in Des Moines.

Bill Richardson: Again, a lot of big Hollywood names maxed out to his campaign, but most of them didn’t endorse him. The exception was Martin Sheen, who came to Iowa in December to go out on the stump with Richardson. Sheen endorsed Obama after Richardson dropped out.

Joe Biden: The famous people listed here as his donors mostly contributed to other candidates as well. I cannot recall any celebrities coming to Iowa to campaign with Biden, but please correct me in the comments if I am wrong. He was often accompanied by family members, especially his sons Beau and Hunter. (UPDATE: I forgot that Richard Schiff, who played Toby the communications guy on “The West Wing,” came to Iowa to campaign with Biden.)

Chris Dodd: Many of the famous people who donated to his campaign also donated to other candidates. However, it is worth mentioning that singer-songwriter Paul Simon campaigned with Dodd in Iowa last July, and former Democratic Senatorial candidate Ned Lamont campaigned with Dodd in Iowa last November.

Dennis Kucinich: Viggo Mortensen came to New Hampshire to campaign with Kucinich after the candidate was left out of the last presidential debate before that state’s primary. Apparently Sean Penn gave Kucinich money during the 2004 campaign.

I am not aware of any celebrity supporters of Mike Gravel.

Click “there’s more” to take the poll after the jump.

Congressman Leonard Boswell’s campaign finally released some results from its internal polling today. An e-mail from campaign manager Scott Ourth said that according to a survey by Anzalone Liszt Research, 65 percent of likely primary voters would vote for Boswell.

If Boswell did win 65 percent of the vote on June 3, he would do slightly better than 8-year incumbent Jane Harman did in the 2006 primary to represent California’s 36th district. Harman, who like Boswell was backed by pretty much the whole state Democratic Party establishment, defeated peace activist Marcy Winograd by 62.4 percent to 37.5 percent.

The e-mail from the Boswell campaign did not contain details such as:

-which days the poll was in the field

-the number of respondents surveyed

-what criteria were used to code a respondent as a likely voter

-the pollster’s projected turnout for June 3

-support for the candidates among men vs. women and in various age groups

-the percent for Ed Fallon versus undecided.

I have asked for more information about the poll and will update this post if I receive answers from the Boswell campaign.

It mentioned that 63 percent of those who attended the Iowa caucuses in January said they would vote for Boswell if the election were held today–though it is not clear from the e-mail whether those who attended caucuses were automatically included in the likely voter pool for the primary.

About 58,000 people in Iowa’s third district attended Democratic caucuses on January 3. Only about 38,000 people in the third district voted in the 2006 Democratic gubernatorial primary.

I have not heard any projections from the Boswell campaign about how many people they expect to turn out on June 3.

Ourth’s e-mail alludes to mailing in early ballots. Presumably there has been an extensive effort to get supporters to return absentee ballots. Fallon’s campaign has also been urging supporters to vote early.

The e-mail also boasts that Boswell doubled Fallon’s fundraising during the latest reporting period, from April 1 to May 14. It links to this report from the Des Moines Register:

Federal Election Commission records show that Boswell, of Des Moines, took in more than $180,000 in contributions between April 1 and May 14. Of that sum, $93,000 came from political action committees, or a little more than half of his total donations.

Boswell, who’s been in office since 1996 and sits on the House agriculture and transportation committees, reported $709,000 cash on hand. He spent $311,000 during the period battling Fallon.

Fallon, also of Des Moines, reported that he collected nearly $73,000, including a $25 contribution from his own pocket. Fallon has been endorsed by groups such as Democracy for America that have assisted him in gaining individual contributions on the Internet, which he has needed since he does not accept PAC money.

Fallon spent about $64,000 during the period and said he had about $28,000 cash on hand by May 14.

Fallon’s campaign strategy has focused on building a strong field operation. During his liveblog session at the EENR blog today, he expressed optimism based on his campaign’s direct voter contacts, and mentioned that yesterday alone the campaign had over 2,200 phone calls and door knocks. Lacking the money to match Boswell’s spending on direct-mail and advertising, Fallon’s chance to pull off an upset depends on the success of his efforts to identify and turn out supporters.

As for the issues, Boswell is still trying to downplay differences between himself and Fallon, telling a reporter for the weekly Cityview,

“If you look at the issues, there’s just not a lot of difference between us,” Boswell said. “He’s taking things out of context and trying to conjure up differences that don’t exist.”

That same article quotes Boswell as promising to support the winner of the primary, which is the first time I’ve heard him make that pledge. He must be feeling very confident, since earlier this spring his campaign would not give me an unequivocal statement promising to support the winner of the primary.

Meanwhile, Boswell’s Congressional office will not take my phone calls or return my voice mail messages seeking clarification of his stand on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. More background on that issue is in this post.

If Boswell has quietly agreed to go along with Republican efforts to grant retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies, despite his public stand with House Democrats on this issue in March, the voters of the third district deserve to know about it.

The full text of today’s e-mail from campaign manager Scott Ourth is after the jump.

If you’re reading this diary before 1 pm, there is still time to click over and ask a question:

http://www.eenrblog.com/showDi…

Otherwise, you can click the link later to read the transcript of the liveblog session.

I have obtained a direct-mail piece that Becky Greenwald’s campaign has sent out before the June 3 primary in the fourth Congressional district. I don’t know how large a universe received this mailer–whether it was just Democrats who are reliable voters, all Democrats, or also included voters not registered as Democrats.

I’ve described the visuals of the mailer and transcribed the text after the jump. It’s an interesting combination of the personal and the political, with the look of a family scrapbook.

I hope that Bleeding Heartland readers in the fourth district will tell us about any other direct-mail pieces or door-hangers you have received from Democrats hoping to take on Latham.

If you scan the images into a diary, or transcribe the text and describe the visuals, I will promote your diary to the front page.

Join me after the jump for more on “The Girl Next Door.”

Michelle Cottle recently wrote a fascinating and thorough account of where Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign went wrong. Click that link to read the whole article at The New Republic, which is the “exclusive story of Hillary’s fall, as told by the high-level advisors, staffers, fundraisers, and on-the-ground organizers who lived it.”

Markos has a simpler explanation:

If Clinton hadn’t voted for Bush’s war, and compounded that grievous mistake by voting for that Iran bill, she’d likely be the nominee.

John Judis largely agrees with Markos but adds a few other points. For instance, he notes that Clinton waited a long time to go negative on Obama, and then when she did, she did it in a way that backfired with certain Democratic constituences and the political/media class.

Clinton supporter “lombard” posted his or her own list of reasons Hillary lost at MyDD.

I think there is some truth to all of these explanations. It could not be more obvious that Mark Penn believed his own spin about Hillary being so far ahead almost everywhere that the nomination would end on Super Tuesday. The Clinton campaign had no game plan for the nomination battle going beyond February 5.

Meanwhile, Obama started out so far behind, and had such good fundraising, that he was working on building an organization in every state to counteract Hillary’s advantage.

I think Iowans were bound to go for an alternative to Hillary, which is one reason why I was saying all last year that she would finish no better than third here. We knew that if Hillary won Iowa, the race was over. The battle was over who would be the “not Hillary” to win Iowa. But if the Clinton campaign hadn’t made other strategic errors, they would have been able to ride out losing Iowa.

I would add that the media strongly favored Obama over Clinton, especially between October and February. The debate on October 30 was one of the turning points in this election. Obama had plenty of missteps in various debates during 2007, but he never got hammered the way Hillary did after that debate. It was her worst debate of the year, but really, she didn’t do that badly.

That was right around the same time the media bashed Clinton on other things too (including the false story that she and her entourage didn’t tip the staff at an Iowa diner). And after failing to gain traction against Hillary for months, Obama started moving up in national polls soon after that October 30 debate.

I wouldn’t say the media were the main factor in Hillary’s loss, but they had their thumb on the scales for sure. (Judis mentions this in his piece as well.) In part, journalists were probably bored with Hillary being ahead and wanted a closer horse race. Also, it can’t be denied that Obama simply appeals more to the pundit class than the Clintons ever did.

I can’t put it any better than Matt Stoller did did in late January (keep in mind that Stoller prefers Obama to Clinton):

For now, Matthew Yglesias, K-Lo at NRO’s the Corner, Andrew Sullivan, and Josh Marshall are all effusively praising Obama.  There’s something of a DC-New York Ivy pundit crush on Obama that I’m seeing all over the place.  The Village is happy as a clam to see Hillary and Bill go down.  And be aware that the Village doesn’t like us and wants us to shut up and stop bothering them about silly things like civil rights and the Consti-whatever it’s called.  And oh yeah, Iraq.

So as you are seeing the primary play out, note that Obama’s coalition is resting on what is potentially a very fragile foundation.  I find Obama’s organizing capacity remarkable and wonderful for all sorts of reasons, and I’ll have more on that soon.  But keep in mind that the weird alliance between the pro-Obama netroots, the DC Villagers and media, the right-wing establishment, business leaders, social justice activists, and black elites is temporary.  These varying interests only intersect on one thing, and that is taking down the Clinton’s.  A Village temper tantrum against the Clinton’s happens periodically, and it is never a good thing.  Ever.  And if and once the Clinton’s have lost, the fraying of this coalition will happen instantly and unpredictably, depending on Obama’s personal allegiances and the various political interests and their calculations.  

Speaking of Hillary, go read American007’s diary about what she may want to bargain for in any negotiations with Obama.

What did I miss?

If you were there, please put up a comment to tell us about it.

Tom Harkin has right-wing bloggers in a tizzy because he recently suggested that the military tradition in McCain’s family has given him a dangerously imbalanced worldview:

“I think one of the problems that John McCain has is that his grandfather was an admiral, his father was an admiral,” Harkin said on a conference call with Iowa Independent and other media. “He comes from a long line of just military people. I think his whole world view, his life view, has been shaped from a military viewpoint and he has a hard time of thinking beyond that. And I think he’s trapped in that, so everything is looked at sort of from his life experiences as always having been in the military and I think that can be pretty dangerous.”

I see what Harkin is getting at–McCain’s background makes him unlikely to get us out of Iraq and perhaps more likely to get us involved in other wars. Still, I don’t think this is good messaging against McCain. Americans are not going to reject his candidacy because he comes from too military of a family.

Harkin was on more solid ground when he talked about McCain’s “scary” temper. McCain has a long history of losing it that suggests he lacks the temperament to be president. This is a huge mark in Barack Obama’s favor, because Obama is much more even-tempered.

But for those who are tired of talking about McCain’s anger management problem, I offer ten more reasons not to support the GOP nominee:

1. Mr. Straight Talk can’t keep his story straight when it comes to Iraq, the economy, tax cuts or other issues. Brave New Films shows you the evidence in “The Real McCain 2”:

2. McCain has employed senior campaign workers with a history of lobbying for foreign corporations or brutal foreign regimes. In fact, the man McCain chose to run this summer’s Republican National Convention is a lobbyist whose firm represented the Burmese junta.

McCain’s campaign has fired at least six employees this month because of their lobbying ties, including his national finance co-chairman Tom Loeffler, whose firm collected millions from Saudi Arabia and other foreign governments.

Even so, McCain is still employing Senior Political Adviser Charlie Black, who has lobbied for:

   * Ahmed Chalabi, the smooth talking Iraqi exile who helped manufacture the WMD charges against Saddam Hussien that led the U.S. to invade.

   * Philippine dictator Ferdinand Marcos, found guilty of torture, executions, disappearances, and human rights violations, who hired Black to “improve” his image in the U.S.

   * Somali dictator Mohamed Siad Barre, who’s army massacred between 40,000 and 50,000 civilians in two years.

   * Dictator Mobuto Sese Seko of Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of Congo), who amassed a vast personal fortune and repressed rival political parties while his country’s children starved.

   * Angolan rebel leader Jonas Savimbi of UNITA, an ally of apartheid-era South Africa, who started a civil war which claimed hundreds of thousands of lives and ordered the torture and murder of countless opponents.

   * Nigerian Dictator Ibrahim Babangida ran a one-party regime, who arrested his opponents, and murdered journalists.

3. McCain has only released two years of his own tax returns and none of his wife Cindy’s tax returns, despite a growing consensus that the public has a right to know about McCain’s personal finances.

Why should you care? Because in the past Cindy McCain had business dealings with a crook whom Senator McCain helped bail out. We need to know if similar conflicts of interest exist today.

4. McCain’s campaign has underpaid for the use of his wife’s corporate jet, even though the self-styled campaign finance reformer has backed legislation that would require candidates to pay the real costs of using corporate jets.

Even after his hypocrisy on this issue was exposed, McCain continues to use his wife’s corporate jet for campaign purposes.

5. McCain’s foreign policy in in all meaningful ways the same as George Bush’s.

6. McCain is running for president on his “vast experience,” but he keeps confusing Sunnis with Shiites, even after being corrected by his buddy Joe Lieberman.

7. McCain says a lot of the problems in the U.S. economy are just “psychological.”

8. McCain’s judicial appointments would likely be the same kind of extreme conservatives George Bush has favored:

The Senator has long touted his opposition to Roe, and has voted for every one of Bush’s judicial appointments; the rhetoric of his speech shows that he is getting his advice on the Court from the most extreme elements of the conservative movement.

9. McCain’s campaign has been bashing Obama for supposedly being willing to negotiate with the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas, but McCain said two years ago that the U.S. would have to engage Hamas if that group were running the Palestinian government.

10. McCain’s campaign blog misleadingly portrays the GOP candidate as a progressive, even though his voting record and stands on the issues are hard-line conservative.

For more on McCain’s record, see the Democratic National Committee’s new clearinghouse for research about him and MoveOn.org’s list of Ten Things You Should Know about John McCain.

By the way, McCain’s continuing problem with fundraising suggests that a lot of Republicans have their own reasons for not supporting the GOP nominee.

It’s incredible to think that even after a campaign that dragged on for months longer than the Republican nominating battle, the Democratic nominee is likely to have a financial edge over McCain this fall.

Feel free to post comments about other reasons not to support McCain that I’ve left out.

Tomorrow’s primary day in Kentucky and Oregon.

Chris Bowers has the latest polling averages for both states.

I’m going with Clinton winning Kentucky 65-30, with Edwards pulling 5 percent. I have no idea why he is still on the ballot there, but apparently he is, as he was in West Virginia (where he got 7 percent).

I’ll pick Obama to win Oregon 58-42. I have no clue what will happen in the Democratic Senate primary in that state.

If you like scenario spinning, go read DavidNYC’s projection of how Obama could win Mississippi this November. Doesn’t sound likely to me against a Republican military hero, but I suppose stranger things have happened.

Finally, political junkies should read Benny’s diary on the right hand side of your screen.

Kevin Miskell, candidate in the IA-04 primary, will be liveblogging at the EENR blog this Wednesday, May 21, from 6 to 7 pm.

Ed Fallon will be liveblogging at EENR on Thursday, May 22, from noon to 1 pm.

Benny’s diary has instructions for registering at EENR, if you are not already a registered user, and for submitting questions for Fallon in advance.

UDPATE: Turns out Markos and I are on the same wavelength with our predictions:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyo…

Click the link to read what Poblano and others project.

Ed Fallon has again emphasized agricultural policy in his campaign against Congressman Leonard Boswell.

Contact: Stacy Brenton

Fallon for Congress

(515) 822-3029

stacy@fallonforcongress.com

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Fallon Kicks Off ‘New Energy for Iowa Tour’

Proposes National CAFO Moratorium

Monday, May 19, 2008 – Today in Des Moines, Ed Fallon kicked off his ‘New Energy for Iowa Tour’ with an announcement that if elected to Congress, Fallon would propose a national moratorium on hog confinements built by big corporations. Fallon sees this as a critical step toward restoring vitality to rural areas suffering from the loss of populations, farm employment and economic development.”

Fallon says, “Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO) are having an adverse effect on the environment, agriculture, health and local farm and business operations. We need to stop the consolidation and explosion of this industry and renew our commitment to growing a sustainable economy and quality of life in rural Iowa. I commit to leading the way on this issue in Washington, given the lack of leadership here at the state level.”

Fallon and Boswell have drawn contrasts with one another on farm policy several times during this campaign. In general, Boswell is happy with current federal agriculture policies and is proud of his work on them, while Fallon is not satisfied with the priorities that guide current agriculture policies.

Fallon is right to say CAFOs should be a federal concern, because there appears to be little hope of making progress on regulating them at the state level.

Meanwhile, evidence is mounting that CAFOs incur huge hidden costs on society.

For more on why Fallon is right on this issue, read the final report from the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production and this recent report from the Union of Concerned Scientists, “CAFOs Uncovered: The Untold Costs of Confined Animal Feeding Operations.”

Senator Tom Harkin plans to donate money to the campaigns of several Democrats running for the Iowa House and Senate, and he wants us to help him choose the recipients:

Dear :

In 2004, George Bush won Iowa.

In 2006, Iowa Democrats turned things around and won with hard work and organization.

To ensure that Iowa remains blue in the general assembly and votes to put a Democrat in the White House we need to build upon our grassroots infrastructure and give our general assembly campaigns the resources they need to be successful this November.

That is why I have launched a new online contest called “Building Blue” on www.tomharkin.com.  I am going to provide $30,000 in contributions to support Iowa Democratic House and Senate candidates.

Please visit www.tomharkin.com/action/building-blue and nominate your favorite State House and Senate candidate to be eligible to receive up to $7,000 for their campaigns.

The nomination round is open from today until May 27th, so please forward this email and tell your friends and family to vote for your favorite candidates.

The top 20 House and top 10 Senate candidates that you nominate will move on to the second round, which will run from May 28 – June 3.  The top five House and top five Senate candidates will each receive a $2,000 donation and move on to the third and final round of voting.

The final round runs from June 4 – June 17, where the top vote-getter from the House and the top vote-getter from the Senate will each win a grand prize of an additional $5,000 contribution.  I will also send a fundraising email on behalf of the winners of the Building Blue contest.

So please support our terrific general assembly candidates by taking part in the Building Blue contest.

Please visit www.tomharkin.com/action/building-blue today and help build a blue Iowa in 2008.

Thank you for your support and good luck!

Senator Tom Harkin

Think about who deserves to be nominated. My criteria will include how competitive the district is, because extra money may be more influential in a close race.

Democracy for America, which endorsed Ed Fallon in February, has sent out another e-mail supporting his candidacy to its members:

Dear [desmoinesdem],

How many times this year did you wake up and say to yourself: America needs more from our elected Democrats?

I’ve said it too many times to count. That’s why our Primaries Matter campaigns are so important.

When Donna Edwards sent Bush Democrat Al Wynn packing a few months ago, we shook the establishment and sent a message to Democrats in Congress: move America forward or move out of Washington.

Now, Ed Fallon is working to beat Bush Democrat Leonard Boswell on June 3 in the Iowa primary and Rep. Boswell is running scared.

CONTRIBUTE $30 RIGHT NOW

How do we know we have this Bush Democrat on the ropes?

Well it’s not just the desperate Washington-style attack ads Boswell is running to distort Ed’s record. And it isn’t just the favors Boswell called in to get his beltway friends raising money in a panic for the campaign.

It’s the Boswell record that tells the real story of this campaign:

Boswell used to vote for the war and every chance to fund it.

Since Ed Fallon challenged him, Boswell votes against it.

Boswell used to vote for illegal spying on Americans.

Since Ed Fallon challenged him, Boswell votes against it.

But it’s clear that turning Rep. Boswell into some sort of “Ed Fallon-Lite” isn’t going to cut it. We need a real progressive in office who will stand with his constituents all the time — not just when it’s politically convenient.

With your contribution today, our victory in June will wake up Congress and send the message: Shape up or ship out.

Take Ed Fallon over the top: CONTRIBUTE $30 NOW

Thank you for taking action today,

-Charles

Charles Chamberlain

Political Director

Democracy for America’s appeal in February generated donations from more than 1,000 individuals. I’ll be watching the Act Blue page over the next day or so to see how they do this time.

For more information on the differences between Fallon and Boswell on the issues, click here.

For more on Boswell’s voting record in Congress, check out this website created by Progressive Kick.

A little more than two weeks before the Democratic primary in Iowa’s third Congressional district, Ed Fallon has challenged Congressman Leonard Boswell to shift his support as a superdelegate from Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama.

It’s a shrewd move for several reasons.

First, Iowa’s third district went for Obama in January, as yesterday’s press release from Fallon underscores:

Fallon says, “Even though Hillary Clinton finished behind Barack Obama and John Edwards in the Third Congressional District, Congressman Boswell continues to ignore the will of the majority by saying he will cast his superdelegate vote for Clinton.”

Fallon worked with John Edwards through the Iowa Caucuses and then endorsed Barack Obama in February. Fallon says, “Both Obama and Edwards are people whose principles reflect my belief that we need to get big money out of politics and stand up to the special interests to accomplish real change in this country. It’s time to come together and focus on defeating John McCain in November.”

As I’ve written before, Fallon yard signs are often seen in the same yards as the Obama “HOPE” signs, while Boswell’s yard signs are frequently paired with Hillary signs.

Any further publicity that aligns Fallon with Obama, and Boswell with Clinton, can’t hurt the challenger and may even sway some undecided Democrats.

Second, Obama is coming back to Des Moines this Tuesday for a victory rally on the night when he is expected to win a majority of the Democratic Party’s pledged delegates. This will surely be a big media event.

Fallon spoke at a Nation for Change rally supporting Obama in Des Moines last month. Whether or not Fallon is able to address the crowd this coming Tuesday, Obama’s visit may generate some media coverage about which prominent Iowans are supporting Obama, and which are still with Clinton.

Third, since Boswell has rejected all invitations to debate, Fallon will not have many more opportunities to trip up the incumbent before the June 3 primary. Challenging Boswell to back Obama is a way to shift the media narrative.

Speaking of debates, Boswell has said he could not spare the time for them because he is too busy working on the farm bill and other legislation. But Congress has already sent the farm bill to President Bush and is likely to be in recess during the last week in May. It’s too bad that Boswell can’t be straightforward about his reasons for not debating Fallon.

A final note before I end this post: after trying for more than a week, I have so far been unable to get any comment from Boswell’s campaign or his Congressional office on whether Boswell was the Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee who on May 8 supported a Republican effort to add the Senate version of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (which includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies) to the fiscal 2009 Intelligence authorization bill.

I am still trying to get someone who works for Boswell to confirm or deny this speculation and will bring you up to date on this soon.

I've got a long diary coming in the next week or two on tips for Barack Obama's volunteers as they reach out to Democrats who did not support Obama in the primaries.

For today, I have just a short message for you.

Heaping scorn on those who supported Hillary Clinton and are disappointed that she is losing does not help your candidate.

If you care about beating John McCain, show a little more empathy and a lot less hostility toward the hardcore Clinton supporters. Otherwise you will only deepen the alienation they feel from the Obama-loving crowd.

When talking to someone who is disappointed that Obama will be our nominee, try to focus on positive reasons to support him, delivered without gloating.

Whoever wins the June 3 primary to represent Iowa’s third district, I think we all should agree that facing a primary challenge has nudged Congressman Leonard Boswell in some good directions. Not only has he come on board with federal legislation he didn’t back in the past (such as the Safe Climate Act), he has also stepped up his constituent service.

The Des Moines Register ran this article on Friday about Windsor Heights moving closer to getting a unique zip code for its residents:

Windsor Heights, which is surrounded completely by other cities, shares the ZIP codes of 50311, 50312 and 50322 with neighboring Des Moines and Urbandale.

Boswell in January introduced legislation, at the urging of Windsor Heights officials, that directs the postal service to designate a unique ZIP code for the city. Iowa Sens. Charles Grassley, a Republican, and Tom Harkin, a Democrat, introduced companion legislation in the U.S. Senate.

Windsor Heights spearheaded a crusade 10 years ago to secure a unique ZIP code for the community, where problems with mail deliveries have irritated residents for years.

Catch that? They’ve been working on this for 10 years. I know Windsor Heights residents who asked Boswell or his staffers years ago to help us get a zip code.

Windsor Heights officials get about 50 complaints a year about the city’s lack of a unique ZIP code. The issue is the top one residents complain about, city officials said.

[City administrator Marketa] Oliver praised the “dogged perseverance” of city leaders in getting the postal service to conduct the survey.

“When I heard, I went ‘Woo hoo,’ ” she said.

Mayor Jerry Sullivan contributed the announcement to support from the Iowa Congressional delegation.

“Leonard (Boswell), if he hadn’t spearheaded this for us, we wouldn’t have gotten to where we are today,” Sullivan said.

I don’t think it’s a coincidence that Boswell took the initiative on this issue right after Ed Fallon declared he was running for Congress.

This morning my family attended the annual pancake breakfast run by the Windsor Heights firefighters, and a person who has served on the city council agreed with me that we wouldn’t have made progress toward getting a zip code if it were not an election year.

I have no idea whether Windsor Heights’ three precincts will go for Boswell or Fallon on June 3, but I think all of the suburb’s residents should be glad the incumbent has been extra motivated to deliver to constituents lately.

On Friday, Marc Ambinder asked, “Didn’t Democrats scoff when Howard Dean and the DNC put money into Mississippi?”

He’s referring to the flap that erupted two years ago when some Democrats complained that Dean was putting too much money into rebuilding the state Democratic parties. Of course, that’s just what Dean had promised to do when he was running for DNC chairman.

Markos gave us this flashback from May 11, 2006. The speaker is Paul Begala, a Democrat from the Clinton wing of the party, on CNN:

   BLITZER: Very quickly, is Howard Dean in trouble?

   BEGALA: No. I think Candy’s report was spot on.

   He — yes, he’s in trouble, in that campaign managers, candidates, are really angry with him. He has raised $74 million and spent $64 million. He says it’s a long-term strategy. But what he has spent it on, apparently, is just hiring a bunch of staff people to wander around Utah and Mississippi and pick their nose. That’s not how you build a party. You win elections. That’s how you build a party.

Now that a Democrat has won a special election in a heavily Republican Congressional district in Mississippi, I guess we all know who was right two years ago.

The campaigns of Congressman Leonard Boswell and challenger Ed Fallon put out very different statements about ethanol on Thursday.

This isn’t the first time the candidates have clashed over agriculture policy. In general, Boswell is happy with our federal farm policies and touts how hard he is working to keep them the way they are.

Fallon would like to see a shift toward more support of local food networks and sustainable agriculture, as well as more regulations to address the economic, public health and environmental problems caused by confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs).

Join me after the jump for more discussion of the ethanol issue.

Someone has urged me not to pay much attention to the electoral vote trackers

on the front page of MyDD, because in some respects they differ from state polling averages you will find at pollster.com or at Real Clear Politics.

Jerome Armstrong, the founder of MyDD, addressed concerns about the electoral vote tracker in this post:

As it says, when you click on either of the map counters of EV’s:

“This Electoral Vote Map is updated constantly to forecast the 2008 Presidential election based on the latest available state polling.”

The very latest poll in each state, without weighting or averaging.

There isn’t a bias as to the pollster, if you see the poll listed as credible on Pollster.com, or RealClearPolitics.com, it’ll be included. But, if the latest poll is tied, then the result remains the same as the previous latest poll.

This is a forecast made by the very latest poll. If you see a mistake, perhaps a poll was missed that is the latest, then point it out, and one of the admins will make the change.

The forecast isn’t a prediction of the election, but a simple up-to-the-minute poll temperature of the state polling.

(update) And yes, you can edit the map yourself, as one user explains:

1) When you first log onto mydd, it populates the two maps with the most recent single poll for each state.

2) If you then click on the map and change it (for example, you don’t believe that Hillary would lose WA to McCain), the numbers update to your settings – now it becomes like an EV calculator

3) The next time you log on, or refresh the page even, the counters go back to their poll-generated state.

Polling averages (for instance, of the five most recent polls in a state) are great when you have several polls taken within a short period of time, as we’re likely to have this fall.

But I don’t think it makes a lot of sense to average the last five polls in a state if that takes you back a couple of months.

Some people have objected that the MyDD tracker recently showed Iowa in Clinton’s column against McCain. That was based on a Research 2000 poll taken on April 22 and 23, which showed her slightly ahead of him, 43-42. Currently, the most recent poll is from Rasmussen on May 13, which showed McCain beating Clinton in Iowa 45-42. As you can see if you click over to MyDD, Iowa is now red for McCain against Clinton.

You may prefer polling averages to whatever the latest poll says, and I will too, once we start getting more frequent releases of state polls. For now, I think that MyDD’s methodology is sound.

Armstrong is probably the blogosphere’s most prominent Obama critic, and Clinton supporters usually dominate the recommended diary list at MyDD, but I encourage you not to write off everything you see at that site, even if you don’t like Clinton. Anyway, front-pager Jonathan Singer is a big Obama advocate.

The Des Moines Register’s editorial board met separately with each of four Democratic candidates seeking to run against Tom Latham in Iowa’s fourth Congressional district. It will probably be another week or two before that newspaper endorses a candidate.

In the meantime, the news report on the interviews focused on their general agreement regarding the Bush administration’s tax breaks for the wealthy.

I would think that fourth district Democrats need to know more about the differences between these candidates. Are there any significant federal policies on which they disagree? Which committees would they want to serve on in Congress? Would they have a different strategy for running against Latham, or bring a unique strength to the table in the general election?

As I’ve written before, I am staying neutral in the IA-04 primary, but the winner will get $100 from me. I would love to get Latham out of Congress this year, or at least make him work so hard that he seriously considers retiring before the 2010 election.

Paul Street has published a thought-provoking piece at Black Agenda Report: The Deeper Racism in Iowa: Beneath the White Obama Craze.

I recommend clicking through and reading this whole article, but here are some passages that illustrate the argument he is making:

Barack Obama’s January 3rd Democratic Caucus victory in Iowa demonstrated that a Black man – or, at least, this particular Black man – could attract winning numbers of white voters. The candidate’s supporters claimed Iowa signaled a new day, that “race doesn’t matter” anymore in the United States. They are in a fantasy of denial. Not only does race remain imbedded in American social relations, but Iowa is especially afflicted with the compulsion to throw African Americans in prison more frequently than any other state. “Liberal” Iowans, proud that their state began a cascade of Obama victories, find it more difficult than ever to face up to the racism that distorts all cross-racial interaction in their cities and towns.

Interestingly enough, you don’t see many if any white liberal Iowa City Obama supporters involved in efforts to fight and overcome routine institutional racism and racial harassment in their city and state.

Given the purported anti-racism behind their support for Obama, they seem remarkably indifferent to – and ignorant of – Iowa’s status as the nation’s leader in disproportionate black imprisonment.

Some of the black and liberal students here find this a paradox.  I have a different perspective. Two days before the heavily Caucasian Iowa caucus, one forthcoming and self-critical caucus-goer and neighbor told me something I’d been suspecting for some time. Obama, he said, was “a way for liberal and moderate whites around here to pat themselves on the back for not being too prejudiced to vote for a black guy.”  But it was all premised, he agreed, on Obama being a “good,” that is non-threatening, middle-class, academic-friendly, and “not-too fiery black” – one who seemed unlikely to confront institutional white supremacy in any way more meaningful than attaining higher office. Like the racially accomodationist, white-friendly media mogul and mass Obama marketer Oprah Winfrey (who came through Iowa to stump for him a few weeks before that state’s critical Caucus), Obama capitalized on middle class whites’ rejection of openly bigoted “level-one” (state-of-mind) racism only because he reassured them he would honor their refusal to acknowledge and confront the continuing power of deeper, “level two” (state-of-being) – societal and institutional – racism in American life. I have spoken with local middle-class whites for whom loving the “good” (bourgeois) black Obama is the other side of the coin of hating the “bad” and “underclass” blacks who are becoming more evident in Iowa City.

The town’s white liberals don’t seem interested in tackling the deeper institutional racism that lives on beneath the surface while they congratulate themselves for being willing to back a certain non-threatening kind of black candidate. They certainly don’t want to look closely at the unpleasant picture of how racial and class oppression produce  pain and inequality in their own schools, neighborhoods, and community. They respond very well to what Black Agenda Report’s Glen Ford has identified as Obama’s “strategy to win the White House” by “run[ning] a ‘race-neutral’ campaign in a society that is anything but neutral on race.” As Ford notes, “the very premise – that race neutrality is possible in a nation built on white supremacy – demand[s] the systematic practice of the most profound race-factual denial, which is ultimately indistinguishable from rank dishonesty.”

I would like to hear your views on this piece, especially if you are an Obama supporter and/or an Iowa City resident.

I got an e-mail from Ed Fallon’s campaign that contrasts Fallon’s “personal commitment” to transportation by bicycle with Congressman Leonard Boswell’s “photo-op” Bike to Work event on Monday morning:

Ed has been riding his bike as a consistent form of transportation for years. It’s his way of demonstrating his personal commitment and responsibility for reducing his carbon footprint.

The e-mail then shows a photo of Fallon “arriving by bike at his campaign office in the February snow,” as well as a photo of Boswell riding his bicycle on Monday, which the incumbent e-mailed to constituents:

Personal commitment or photo op?

You decide!

Speaking of Bike to Work Week, Fallon will be at the Handlebar Happy Hour on Friday at 5 pm at the El Bait Shop, 200 SW 2nd St, Des Moines.

Now, do I think Fallon would represent me better in Congress because he rides a bicycle regularly? No, but I do have confidence that because of this experience, he understands the need to make our roads more bike-friendly.

I know many people who are afraid to run errands on their bikes, but would consider it if there were bike lanes on more streets in the Des Moines area.

Although Boswell has served on the House Transportation Committee for some time, I have not seen any commitment from him to promoting “complete streets” that encourage travel by foot and by bicycle as well as by car.

I don’t care how often Boswell uses his bicycle as long as he gets behind the Safe and Complete Streets bill that Representative Doris Matsui recently introduced in the House. Tom Harkin has already introduced a similar bill in the U.S. Senate.