If you can spare some cash for a good Democrat, today or tomorrow would be an excellent time to donate.

May 14 is the last day of the current reporting period, and the media as well as the Republican Party will be scrutinizing those fundraising totals to figure out where the strong and weak candidates are.

So far during this reporting period, I’ve donated to five candidates for the Iowa legislature:

Jerry Sullivan

Eric Palmer

Elesha Gayman

McKinley Bailey

Nate Willems

Speaking of Nate, here is an update on his campaign that I received by e-mail recently:

Today I am putting online Natewillems.com.  I am calling it a “1.0” because the site is still in its infancy.  It covers the essentials, though, and should give you a sense as to what is motivating me to run to represent House District 29.  Please take a moment to visit http://www.natewillems.com

May 14th is the last day this campaign’s first reporting period.  These early reporting periods are the most crucial to my campaign.  Though this seat has been held by a Democrat for 12 years, the Republicans will look at any open seat as a potential opportunity to take a seat back.  I need to raise as much money as possible in these early reporting periods to dissuade the Republicans from investing heavily in District 29.

We are very close to having raised $30,000 in the first two months of this campaign.  Please consider making a contribution today through my ActBlue account:

https://secure.actblue.com/con…

Of course, we do still have a regular mailbox: Citizens for Willems, P.O. Box 213, Lisbon, IA 52253.

Many of you have already donated.  I thank you again very much for your donation, but ask that you consider making another contribution to get us past this $30,000 goal.  

Many of you are intending to donate at some point and I ask you to make your contribution now.  

There are thousands of doors yet for me to knock on and countless people to meet.  With your financial support, I can spend more time knocking on doors and less time raising money.  https://secure.actblue.com/con…

Don’t forget, take a look at www.natewillems.com

Thank you very much.  I look forward to seeing you again soon.

Nate

—

(319) 929-4543

Please find a good Democrat and make a donation today.

For whatever reason, Congressman Leonard Boswell’s campaign website (http://www.boswellforcongress.com) doesn’t seem to list upcoming events in the district anywhere, so I don’t always know when he plans to be in town. (Please correct me if there’s a page on the site I have missed–I’ve looked for an events calendar.)

Most candidates are happy to publicize upcoming local events. Maybe Boswell doesn’t want to call attention to his visits to the district because they undercut his claim that he is too busy working in Washington to debate Ed Fallon.  

I know he had a Bike to Work week event in Des Moines on Monday morning, and I heard he had some kind of event at Prairie Meadows the same day, but I don’t know if it was a campaign appearance or a fundraiser.

If you have heard about an event Boswell is holding in the district, please post a comment or a diary.

I am not a regular at Firedoglake, so I didn’t realize that Ed Fallon was liveblogging there on Saturday morning.

A lot of interesting questions about Fallon, Boswell and the district were asked and answered, so I recommend clicking here to read the thread.

Thanks to Bob in AZ for reminding me about the liveblog.

I got a fundraising e-mail yesterday from Tom Harkin’s campaign manager, Jeff Link. He is trying to convince me that the third Republican to start campaigning against Harkin, former State Representative George Eichhorn, is a real threat to the four-term incumbent because he “released a list of 33 prominent Republicans” who have endorsed him.

For more information on Eichhorn, check out his campaign website or click here for more about his official announcement this week.

With all due respect to Eichhorn, I can’t see how he could possibly build up enough name recognition and support in the next six months to defeat Harkin in what is likely to be a banner year for Democrats in the Congressional races.

I understand that raising money is part of a campaign manager’s job, but let’s face some facts. Harkin’s campaign started the year with more than $3 million cash on hand. His approval/disapproval rating in April 2008 was 55/38 according to Survey USA, prompting the “Senate Guru” (who runs a great blog) to declare Harkin “as safe as they come.”

Other analyses declaring Harkin’s seat safe include about.com’s US politics rankings and CQ Politics.

So don’t take this the wrong way, Senator Harkin, but the $35 I spent on my steak fry ticket last September was the last money you’ll see from me for a long while.

As I’ve said, I am directing my campaign contributions to races where it might make a difference.

The full text of the e-mail from Jeff Link is after the jump.

Matt Stoller put up a post at Open Left today regarding the latest attempt to get retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies into the House version of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

As you may recall, the Senate version of the FISA bill includes retroactive immunity for telecoms. House Democrats have so far beaten back several attempts to add that provision to the House version of the FISA bill.

On Thursday, May 8, one of the Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee tried to get the Senate version of the FISA bill added to the fiscal 2009 Intelligence authorization bill. That effort was defeated by a vote of 11-10.

However, twelve Democrats serve on the House Intelligence Committee, which means that one of them voted with the nine Republicans to try to get telecom immunity in the FISA bill.

The question is whether the Democrat who voted with Republicans was our own Congressman Leonard Boswell. He is one of two likely suspects, because he and Bud Cramer (AL-05) were the only two Democrats on this committee to sign a letter in February advocating retroactive immunity for telecoms in the House version of the FISA bill.

In March, Boswell changed his position and stood with the majority of House Democrats who do not want to grant telecoms immunity in the FISA bill.

Democrats in the third district deserve to know whether Boswell has quietly reverted to his initial position, in favor of telecom immunity. According to the Open Secrets website, Boswell’s PAC contributions for the 2007/2008 election cycle alone include $10,000 from AT&T and $2,000 from Verizon.

I am trying to get a comment on this from the Boswell campaign, and I will update this diary if and when I hear back from them.

Ed Fallon’s campaign is keeping up the pressure on Congressman Leonard Boswell to agree to a debate before the June 3 primary:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Fallon Encourages Groups to Host Joint Debate

Hopes Boswell will Reconsider

Thursday, May 8, 2008, (11:00 AM CDT) – Late yesterday, Ed Fallon sent a proposal to ten media outlets and organizations to join together to host a debate between him and Congressman Boswell. These ten were chosen because they recently issued their own debate invitations to Fallon and Boswell. Fallon accepted all ten invitations, while Boswell has not accepted one.

Fallon said, “I believe ten invitations reflect a clear mandate from the voters that they want a chance to see and hear from Congressman Boswell and me. Maybe Congressman Boswell will reconsider participating in a debate if this group can bring enough pressure to bear. It may be incentive enough for him to change his mind.”

Fallon has already heard back from four of the groups and all have expressed an interest in pursuing a joint debate. Fallon encourages any other groups interested in joining this effort to contact his campaign by Monday, May 12th. The Fallon campaign is only initially facilitating the effort to bring groups together to take the lead as the sponsoring organizations. Those interested should contact Stacy Brenton at stacy@fallonforcongress.com or 515-822-3029.

As I wrote earlier this week, Boswell’s excuse that he is just too busy to debate is not credible. He has been visiting the district for fundraisers and various public events. I saw him myself in Waukee on Sunday. Why couldn’t he have scheduled a debate for this past weekend, when he was planning to be in the Des Moines area anyway?

It’s not uncommon for an incumbent to refuse to debate a challenger, so as not to risk making a mistake or giving the rival favorable media exposure. But if Boswell is going to duck debates, the least he can do is be honest about his reasons.

On a related note, I mentioned on Tuesday that I hadn’t seen any yards with signs for both Hillary and Fallon. That changed this morning when I was walking my dog a mile or so from my house.

If you’ve seen Obama/Boswell or Hillary/Fallon combos in someone’s yard, please let us know.

Also, please post a comment or a diary if you’ve seen our “too-busy-working-in-Washington-to-debate” Congressman at an event in the third district recently.

UPDATE: I posted a diary about this at Open Left, and Bob in AZ asked if any organization would be willing to host an “empty chair debate,” which would attract even more media attention to Boswell’s refusal to show up and talk about the issues. That is a great idea. I would encourage the Fallon campaign to try to make that happen.

It’s 10:30 am on Thursday, and I just got off the phone with a very aggressive phonebanker for Barack Obama. I don’t know where this guy was from. It sounded like his accent was from somewhere in the northeast, and it sounded like he was calling from a phonebank, and not working as a volunteer from his home.

I explained at least 10 times that I am not going to give money to Barack Obama’s campaign this year, because I don’t feel that he needs my money, and I am going to focus on supporting state and local candidates who need my money more.

This guy was tenacious, though (some would probably find his manner obnoxious). He kept telling me that Obama does need my money more, that this is the most important thing, why can’t I give to Obama and local candidates, it’s going to come down to every last dollar, etc.

Finally I just started laughing. I told him that he and I have a respectful disagreement, but I’m still not giving Obama any money this year.

I wonder if their scripts tell them to be that insistent when someone has already said more than a half-dozen times that she is not going to contribute. I did emphasize that I will certainly vote for Obama.

Obama has been raising money hand over fist all year, and he recently passed 1.5 million unique donors. John McCain has underperformed in fundraising since becoming the presumptive Republican nominee. If Obama loses the general, it’s not going to be for lack of resources.

Another day, another action alert urging me to beg Congressman Leonard Boswell to stand with most House Democrats, instead of with the Bush administration:

Dear MoveOn member,

Tomorrow could be Congress’ last chance to exercise real oversight on the war. The media is paying less attention to Iraq, but we need to remind Rep. Boswell that voters aren’t-Americans are more frustrated with the war than ever before.

Can you call Rep. Boswell right now and tell him that voters are tired of dumping billions into the unwinnable war in Iraq? Tell Rep. Boswell that voters are looking for accountability from President Bush on the war and we want our troops home quickly. (We’ve included more details below.)

Here’s where to call:

Representative Leonard Boswell

Phone: 202-225-3806

Then, please report your call by clicking here:

http://pol.moveon.org/call?tg=…

According to news reports, Congress will have a series of separate votes. There’ll be one vote on whether to give the president $162 billion to fund the war through next year-with no strings attached. That’s a huge amount to spend on keeping troops in Iraq, especially at a time when peoples’ houses are being foreclosed and unemployment is going up at home.

Then, there will be separate votes on measures to redeploy our troops and hold the Bush administration accountable for their actions during the war-measures that could ban torture, hold contractors accountable, and prevent President Bush from committing our troops to a permanent presence in Iraq.1

It’s important that all members of Congress hear that voters do not want the president to get another $162 billion blank check for the war. Can you call Rep. Boswell and ask him to reject a blank check for the president and to support proposals to bring our troops home and hold Bush accountable instead?

Thanks for all you do.

–Nita, Michael, Daniel, Joan, and the MoveOn.org Political Action Team

 Wednesday, May 7th, 2008

P.S. Here’s an excerpt from a Washington Post article explaining Thursday’s votes:

“Setting up their last major battle over war policy with President Bush, House Democrats yesterday unveiled a plan to link their favored domestic spending projects and a troop-withdrawal timeline to additional funds for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan requested by the White House.

The $195 billion spending measure would pay for the wars well into next year while tacking on $11 billion to extend unemployment benefits and nearly $1 billion to offer expanded higher education benefits for war veterans. Democrats said they hope that the spending provisions, particularly the education measure, will prove politically difficult for Bush to veto in an election year.

“If he wants to make a federal case out of the fact that we feel the need to do something major to reward the troops, that’s his prerogative. But I don’t think the country will agree with him. And I certainly don’t think the country would agree with any effort to deny the extension of unemployment benefits,” said House Appropriations Chairman David R. Obey (D-Wis.).

The White House remained opposed to the additional spending, demanding a “clean” bill to fund the wars by the symbolically important date of Memorial Day.

“We feel strongly that the Iraq war supplemental should remain for national security needs. We understand that there could be debates on other issues, such as unemployment benefits and food stamps, other issues that are important to a lot of people. But those issues can be taken up separate from our national security needs,” said Dana Perino, White House press secretary.

House Republicans also denounced the Democrats’ plan.

“It is unacceptable and, indeed, unimaginable for Congress to continue to hold our troops hostage for political leverage. If House Democrats want to ramp up spending on other government programs, those items should be considered separately,” said House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio).

The House’s emergency supplemental funding measure is broken into three pieces, including $162.6 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, of which $66 billion is designed to cover war costs for several months after the next administration takes over. The second portion includes language mandating immediate troop withdrawals with a goal of having most all troops out by the end of 2009. The third part includes the domestic spending.”

Click here to read the whole thing:

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=3633…

Source:

1. “Leader Reid gets pushback on Iraq war bill,” The Hill, May 6, 2008

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=3634…

Support our member-driven organization: MoveOn.org Political Action is entirely funded by our 3.2 million members. We have no corporate contributors, no foundation grants, no money from unions. Our tiny staff ensures that small contributions go a long way. If you’d like to support our work, you can give now at:

http://political.moveon.org/do…

PAID FOR BY MOVEON.ORG POLITICAL ACTION, http://pol.moveon.org/

Not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee.

Right now, I think Barack Obama can make a stronger case with the superdelegates for why they should hand him the nomination instead of giving it to Hillary Clinton. (As is clear, neither candidate can get a majority of delegates without the superdelegates.)

However, every time I inch toward hoping that Obama will win the nomination, he says or does something that alienates me. As I’ve written, Hillary’s advocacy of a gas tax holiday this summer is a major red flag for me. But I learned today that Obama has sent out a direct-mail piece in Kentucky that proclaims, “Barack Obama believes in clean Kentucky coal.” (click the link to see the design)

People, there is no such thing as clean coal. Even if they develop carbon-capture technology in the next decade, there will still be environmental problems related to coal mining and other pollution caused by burning coal. The carbon-capture itself could be problematic, if the carbon is sequestered by turning large quantities of underground water into carbonic acid.

I also have to wonder if Obama really does believe in Kentucky coal. His own energy policy calls for not expanding coal-generated power until sequestration technology is available. For a guy who usually campaigns on being able to tell Americans the truth, even if it isn’t what they want to hear, Obama sure seems to be pandering to Kentucky Democrats. One recent poll in the state shows him more than 30 points behind Clinton. He’s not going to win the May 20 primary in any case, but I’m sure he would prefer not to lose by a 2-1 margin.

If Obama is just pretending to be for “clean Kentucky coal,” that undercuts his claim to be a different kind of politician. And if he really does believe in “clean Kentucky coal,” that’s worse from my perspective.

I didn’t watch Obama’s victory speech in North Carolina tonight, but Populista put up the transcript in this diary.

Populista particularly liked this passage:

So don’t ever forget that this election is not about me, or any candidate. Don’t ever forget that this campaign is about you– about your hopes, about your dreams, about your struggles, about securing your portion of the American Dream.

But I have to say that what is wonderful to many Obama supporters couldn’t be more of a turnoff to me.

That excerpt takes me back to one of the things I disliked about Ronald Reagan in the 80s–the way he used this self-actualizing, empowering rhetoric to get people to project their hopes and dreams onto his candidacy.

I want my candidate to be standing up for the core values of the Democratic Party, which can be defined–not for every American’s hopes and dreams, which could mean anything.

What politician can really claim to stand for everyone’s hopes and dreams? Anyway, some Americans are hoping for policies that are abhorrent to me.

Sometimes Obama seems to be telling me to just believe in myself, but if I need to hear that message I can buy a self-help book or go see a psychotherapist. We need concrete actions from the president, and not just a belief that we can do anything we put our minds to.

I should add that other parts of Obama’s speech tonight, where he got specific about the policies he favors, are much more to my liking.

And this was pure John Edwards:

This is the country that allowed my father-in-law– a city worker at a South Side water filtration plant– to provide for his wife and two children on a single salary. This is a man who was diagnosed at age thirty with multiple sclerosis– who relied on a walker to get himself to work. And yet, every day he went, and he labored, and he sent my wife and her brother to one of the best colleges in the nation.  It was a job that didn’t just give him a paycheck, but a sense of dignity and self-worth. It was an America that didn’t just reward wealth, but the work and the workers who created it.

The idea of treating work and wealth fairly, and rewarding both, is exactly the frame we need to use when we talk about changing the tax code.

I also liked the way Obama said, “we can’t afford to give John McCain the chance to serve out George Bush’s third term.”

More like that, please.

I'm seeing more and more yard signs for Leonard Boswell and Ed Fallon as I drive around the western part of Des Moines and the suburbs. The Boswell signs are the same style he's been using for years, with a blue background and "Boswell for Congress" written in cursive white lettering. The Fallon signs are white with "Fallon for Congress" in green, and the tag line "New energy for Iowa" below in red letters.

Most of the time, these signs are the only ones in the yards. However, I've noticed quite a few homes with signs for both Hillary and Boswell. Similarly, I've noticed a lot of yards with Fallon signs and either the Obama "HOPE" sign or an anti-war sign such as "Support our Troops–End the War."

I'm on the lookout for yards with signs for Hillary and Fallon, or for Obama and Boswell, but I haven't seen any of those yet. Please put up a comment if you've seen either of those combinations anywhere in the district.

It has to be good for the challenger that so many people driving around are getting the impression that Obama supporters also lean toward Fallon. That's certainly true for many people I know who caucused for Obama.

Obama wins by double digits in North Carolina (56-42 with 95 percent reporting).

Clinton is ahead narrowly in Indiana (52-48 with 87 percent reporting). However, heavily African-American Lake County, where Gary is located, has not reported yet, and even the Obama supporter Markos finds that suspicious.

UPDATE: Clinton held on to win Indiana narrowly, 51-49, but Obama’s blowout in NC was by a bigger popular vote margin than Clinton’s in Pennsylvania. She needed to do better. I am glad that demagoguing on the gas tax didn’t pay off for her.

For Obama to keep it that close in Indiana bodes well for him, because he’s had a rough few weeks. However, I still disagree with those who say Hillary should pack it in. [UPDATE: Given that Obama’s popular vote lead now seems insurmountable, she may well want to quit, although I don’t think it would be terrible to wait until after the rest of the primaries.] Let all the states and territories vote, and then let the superdelegates settle this in mid-June. Voters are energized all over the country, and they should all have a chance to express their will. If Obama is ahead in the popular vote as well as the pledged delegate count, I think he should be the nominee.

On a related note, I thought Clinton supporter Todd Beeton made an excellent point today:

I was asked the other night: “Why is Hillary still in this thing?” I responded, “Has Barack won the nomination? Because if he has, why is he still campaigning?” Seriously, if the nomination is so settled as many Obama supporters like to claim, he’s free to just go home to Chicago. No one’s stopping him. Yet it’s Hillary Clinton who is the object of the ire of Obama supporters who seem to honestly believe that Hillary Clinton’s winning the nomination would be tantamount to her robbing him of something he hasn’t won yet. What a joke.

UPDATE: Wow, Donna Brazile, a self-described “undeclared” superdelegate who talks like an Obama supporter, made some worrisome comments tonight on CNN. Talk Left has the whole transcript here:

http://www.talkleft.com/story/…

Key excerpt:

BRAZILE: Well, Lou, I have worked on a lot of Democratic campaigns, and I respect Paul. But, Paul, you’re looking at the old coalition. A new Democratic coalition is younger. It is more urban, as well as suburban, and we don’t have to just rely on white blue-collar voters and Hispanics. We need to look at the Democratic Party, expand the party, expand the base and not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

She and Clinton supporter Paul Begala had quite the exchange after that.

It concerns me that some Obama supporters seem so unfazed by his failure to connect with certain key Democratic constituencies.

I got an e-mail from Congressman Leonard Boswell’s campaign today touting another union endorsement:

                                                                                                              CONTACT: Betsy Shelton  

May 6, 2008                                                                                                                                                                                                                               515-238-3356

Iowa Steelworkers Endorse Congressman Boswell

Des Moines, IA – The United Steelworkers (USW) Iowa District 11 announced their endorsement of Congressman Leonard Boswell today.  “I am honored to receive the support of the United Steelworkers in Iowa,” said Congressman Boswell.  “I will continue my fight to improve the lives of working families across the state of Iowa.”

“Congressman Boswell has long been a friend of the United Steelworkers in Iowa.  With his seniority, it is important to have continuity and leadership representing Iowans,” said Randy Boulton, sub-director of USW District 11.  “The working families of USW wholeheartedly endorse Congressman Boswell.”

The United Steelworkers Iowa District 11 represents 8,000 members across the state of Iowa.

It’s not clear how many steelworkers in Iowa live in the third district.

I have to laugh every time the Boswell campaign brags about his seniority. As I wrote earlier this year,

Several campaign communications from Boswell have touted his ranking by Knowlegis as the 135th most powerful member of the U.S. House. They point out that this makes Boswell “more powerful than nearly 70 percent” of the members of Congress.

To put this in perspective, I looked up the whole class of 1996 as ranked by Knowlegis. Of the 47 House representatives first elected in that year who still serve, 31 were Democrats. Boswell ranks exactly in the middle of that group; 15 House Democrats first elected in 1996 are more powerful than he is, according to Knowlegis, and 15 are less powerful.

Digging further into the Knowlegis rankings, I found that 15 House Democrats first elected in 1998 are more powerful than Boswell, seven House Democrats first elected in 2000 are more powerful than Boswell, eight House Democrats first elected in 2002 are more powerful than Boswell (including Rahm Emanuel and Chris Van Hollen), eight House Democrats first elected in 2004 are more powerful than Boswell, and three House Democrats first elected in 2006 are more powerful than Boswell.

I don’t mean to discount Boswell’s efforts on behalf of his constituents. But let’s not kid ourselves–it’s not as if Fallon is challenging the Ways and Means Committee chairman, whose level of influence in Congress could not be matched for many years.

Moreover, continuity in terms of Boswell’s voting habits is exactly what I don’t want from my representative. His “progressive score,” as calculated by Progressive Punch, leaves a lot to be desired.

Elected officials and policy advocates are getting increasingly annoyed by Hillary Clinton’s decision to make this nominating contest about her really bad proposal to suspend the gas tax this summer and pay for it with a windfall tax on oil companies.

Today Tom Harkin weighed in on the issue, telling reporters that Congress will not take up this proposal. Even if the gas tax holiday were enacted, Harkin suggested, consumers would not benefit much, and the Iowa Department of Transportation would lose about $75 million in revenues to rebuild infrastructure.

Friends of the Earth Action, which supported John Edwards for president and had been sitting out the campaign since he left the race, today endorsed Barack Obama, largely because of the gas tax issue:

“We endorse Senator Obama because we believe he is the best candidate for the environment,” said Friends of the Earth Action President Brent Blackwelder.  “The ‘gas tax holiday’ debate is a defining moment in the presidential race.  The two other candidates responded with sham solutions that won’t ease pain at the pump, but Senator Obama refused to play that typical Washington game.  Instead, Obama called for real solutions that would make transportation more affordable and curb global warming.  He showed the courage and candor we expect from a president.”

Friends of the Earth Action ran radio and television ads on behalf of Edwards in the early-voting states, and the group is now running this ad supporting Obama:

As I’ve said many times, I would vote for either Obama or Clinton in the general and have no strong preference between the two. I would hate to see Hillary gain the inside track for the nomination through this kind of political posturing, though. It’s such a bad idea on so many levels.

Obama appears to be feeling the heat on this issue. A few days ago his campaign put out a television ad calling the gas tax holiday a “bogus” idea that would just help big oil companies (click the link to view that ad). However, his closing ad in Indiana and North Carolina moves away from that issue to a more general message:

Meanwhile, Clinton seems to think she has hit pay dirt, and has made the gas tax the focus of her closing ad in the states that will vote tomorrow:

For a laugh, I highly recommend this diary by Matt Stoller, CONFIDENTIAL/URGENT POLITICAL PROPOSAL, which skewers Hillary’s proposal on the gas tax by presenting it in the format of those scam e-mails promising to make you rich.

Please put up your predictions for the Indiana and North Carolina primaries in the comments. I say these results will be mirror images of each other: Obama will win NC 55-45, and Hillary will win Indiana by the same margin.

The Democratic primary in Iowa’s third Congressional district is 30 days away, and Leonard Boswell still has not agreed to debate Ed Fallon.

Fallon’s campaign put out a press release yesterday criticizing the incumbent for dodging debates. The full text is after the jump, but here’s a key paragraph:

Fallon said his campaign received nine invitations to debates and forums and he accepted them all. Further, the Des Moines Register and KCCI offered Congressman Boswell three alternative dates to accommodate his schedule. “I have no doubt that if Congressman Boswell wanted to debate, he would find the time,” said Fallon. “What I find discourteous is his excuse that he is simply too busy. I don’t think a Congressman can be too busy for the voters.”

If I were an incumbent whose voting record was not in line with the values of my Democratic constituents, and I had been successful in diverting the mainstream media’s attention from those issues, I probably would not be eager to debate a challenger either. Boswell may also be afraid of making a mistake in the debate, which would then provide an opening for negative media coverage.

Of course, it would not be politically correct to give the real reasons for not debating Fallon, so the Boswell campaign will hide behind the “too busy” excuse.

By the way, after the Fallon campaign’s previous press release challenging Boswell to debate, I sought an official response from the Boswell campaign and got the following reply from press secretary Betsy Shelton on April 23: “We are currently working with KCCI and the Des Moines Register to see if we can find a date that is mutually acceptable.”

I’m trying to get an official comment about whether Boswell’s rejection of the debate is now final, and I will update this diary if I get one.

UPDATE: On Monday morning I checked my e-mail and found the following reply from Shelton:

Congressman Boswell is currently helping to pass the Farm bill and other measures that benefit Iowa families.  We were unable to find a date which works.

That’s too bad. I know he visits the Des Moines area from time to time, because I saw him on Sunday morning at an event in Waukee organized by the Des Moines Jewish Federation. I regret that he didn’t make it a priority to set aside time for a debate on one of his visits to the district this spring.

You can educate yourself about Boswell’s voting record by clicking this link (sound has been added to the animated cartoon at that site).

You can learn about the differences between Fallon and Boswell on the issues by clicking here.

The latest press release from Fallon’s campaign is after the jump.

Come on, Tom Latham, you know you want to retire. It’s not fun being in the minority party, is it? And from the looks of things, Republicans will be in the minority for a long, long time.

Yesterday Don Cazayoux narrowly won a special election in Louisiana’s sixth Congressional district. That district has a partisan index of R+7, meaning that it votes about 7 percent more Republican than the national average. The GOP should have no trouble holding a seat in that kind of district.

Jonathan Singer put up a good post on what this means at MyDD. I liked this part:

The attacks linking Cazayoux to Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama didn’t work. They simply didn’t. Yes, the Republicans pulled in more votes and a greater share of the vote than they did last month in the first round of balloting. So what. This is a very Republican district and yet despite of this lean and the fact that the GOP tried to make this election about Jeremiah Wright, they still lost.

This race was very much put forward by the chattering class as a referendum on Obama’s coattails (which proved to be strong in the very Republican-leaning Illinois 14th congressional district earlier this year), and Obama’s coattails passed the challenge. Simply put, the Republicans may have thought they had found a silver bullet in Obama and Wright (and Pelosi, too, for that matter), but they didn’t.

Markos keeps his post-election thoughts short and simple:

Tonight’s results will get picked apart for analysis by lots of people in the coming days. But in short, it will become obvious that Cazayoux’s margin of victory came from black votes — you disrespect that community at your own peril. And second of all, Republicans once again failed, in a blood red district, to scare voters into submission by running scary ads against scaaaary national Democrats like Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama.

Voters, even in solidly conservative districts, are simply not that scared of Democrats anymore. It’s Bush they’re terrified of.

One last thought — Democrats now have a 235-199 advantage in the U.S. House. They started the cycle 233-202.

While I remain concerned about the possibility that John McCain could be the next president, it looks like this will be a banner year for the Democrats in the Congressional races.

By the way, if the Republicans can’t hold a seat with a partisan index of R+7, I don’t think we need to worry about Iowa’s third Congressional district, which is D+1.

UPDATE: Comedy gold, as Republicans try to spin this outcome as “a warning shot to Democrats”:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008…

When was the last time Demo Memo, noneed4thneed and I agreed on something related to this year’s presidential campaign?

We’re all against the terrible idea of temporarily suspending the federal gas tax between Memorial Day and Labor Day. I have already written about why this is bad policy, but I want to call your attention to this post by Chris Bowers, which explains how disastrous Hillary Clinton’s idea is politically on several levels.

You should read Bowers’ whole post, but here are some of my favorite passages:

  2. Clinton is threatening other Democrats on the gas tax holiday, claiming that opposing it means you are with the oil companies.

[there’s a YouTube here you can watch if you click through to Open Left]

     Not only is that nonsensical, it is reminiscent of the many times that Bill Clinton favored legislation in the face of opposition from the left: NAFTA, welfare reform, the telecommunications act, the Defense of Marriage Act, etc. She isn’t taking on the oil companies with this proposal, she is taking on the American left, just as her husband frequently did while he was President. Clearly, we can expect more of this if she were to become President.

  3. So, why is Clinton taking on the left and helping out oil companies? To score political points. Her campaign has said this in public [….]

     Given that one of the two or three main image problems the Democratic Party has faced over the past couple decades is the perception that we don’t stand for anything and lack core values, publicly stating that a policy proposal is good because it is helping you in the polls is extremely damaging. Of course, it is also the sort of language that both Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton use on a regular basis, and which we should obviously expect a lot more of should Hillary Clinton become President. This will have lasting, negative effects on the image of the Democratic Party.

  4. Where did this policy come from? This isn’t a policy that Clinton has been campaigning on for a while–she just came up with in over the last two weeks. Given that she is willing to make some new gimmick the centerpiece of her public policy discussion on a whim in order to score political points, how can we ever believe that she won’t just dump whatever current policy proposals she has if, in so doing, she believes she can score political points with some right-wing gimmick policy?

[…]

The gas tax holiday episode collects all of my worst fears about a possible second Clinton presidency in a single, dark, place that I haven’t entered since the 1990’s. Are we to suffer through another Democratic President who will make impromptu, right-ward shifts toward bad policy, justified in nonsensical, Orwellian language, all the while claiming such a move must be done because it will score huge political points even though it is ultimately a bad political calculation, and then threaten the entire Democratic Party to fall in line behind such a move or else? This is basically all of my worst fears about Hillary Clinton becoming President rolled up into one giant ball of tin-foil and dropped on my front porch.

That about sums it up for me.

Clinton supporters claim that her proposal is different from John McCain’s, because she would impose a windfall tax on the oil companies to make up for the lost revenue from the gas tax holiday.

But if you know anything about how Congress works, you know that the part about the windfall tax would probably get stripped out by amendment (plenty of Congressional Democrats vote with Republicans when it comes to oil companies), or in the conference committee. Then we’d be stuck with the gas tax holiday that Hillary has been demagoguing on for the last couple of weeks, and oil companies would benefit.

By the way, I mentioned a few days ago that Hillary’s proposal seems hypocritical in light of her opposition to a similar gas tax holiday in 2000.

But that very same year, Obama voted to temporarily suspend the gas tax in the Illinois Senate. So he has not always taken a principled stand against this dumb idea either. (hat tip to Jeralyn at Talk Left)

Speaking of Talk Left, Big Tent Democrat made a brilliant observation yesterday. Commenting on a report that the gas tax holiday idea is “DOA” (dead on arrival) because House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer have spoken out against it, Big Tent Democrat noted that

it is funny how they can not declare FISA telco immunity DOA or how they could never declare Iraq funding without a date certain DOA. I have little respect for the leadership of Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer.

Me neither.

It sounds like he is leaning that way.

Ron Paul had a strong showing in several states that may be closely contested assuming Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee. I would think Nevada would be very much in play, for instance.

Clearly a significant portion of the Republican base is still not sold on McCain. As I wrote last week, Paul got nearly 16 percent of the Republican primary voters in Pennsylvania (about 128,000 people). That was more than John Kerry’s winning margin in Pennsylvania against George Bush in 2004.

If you want to know the details about the pledged delegates and superdelegates for Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, keep an eye on the 2008 Democratic Convention Watch site. On the left side of the front page, they are continually updating the delegate counts. Almost every day a superdelegate or two declare their allegiance.

The Daily Kos has also put a delegate counter at the top of the front page, and MyDD has its own counter on the front page of that site, but I think the Democratic Convention Watch blog has the most complete information.

If you want to know where Clinton and Obama currently stand against McCain in any state, check the front page of MyDD, where you will find electoral vote counters on the upper left and upper right side of the screens. These are continually updated with the latest state polls.

I noticed today that for the first time in several weeks, both Obama and Clinton lead McCain in electoral votes. For a long time both were behind, and then for a week or so Clinton was leading McCain while Obama trailed him.

The counters show maps of the U.S. with the states in red or blue, so you can see at a glance that Clinton and Obama have very different paths to victory against McCain.

Today Obama would be projected to beat McCain 275-263 by winning all of the Kerry states except New Hampshire, plus Iowa and Colorado.

Clinton would be projected to beat McCain 287-251 by winning most of the Kerry states except Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan and New Hampshire, plus Iowa, Ohio, Florida and Missouri.

The electoral vote trackers change almost every day, so keep checking the front page of MyDD if you are interested.

IowaPolitics.com got a scoop from John McCain’s event in Des Moines yesterday:

Clive businessman Marty Parrish was escorted from Sen. John McCain’s town hall meeting by Des Moines police and members of the Secret Service after asking McCain if he had called his wife Cindy an expletive in 1992.

Parrish, an ordained Baptist minister who holds a master’s degree in political science, was questioned by Secret Service agents before being released. He was not charged in the incident. Parrish asked whether McCain called his wife Cindy an expletive related to the female anatomy, as has been alleged in the book “The Real McCain,” written by Dem strategist Cliff Schecter.

McCain’s response got him a round of applause from the crowd: “There’s people here who don’t respect that kind of language, so I’ll move on to the next questioner in the back.”

In an interview with IowaPolitics.com, Parrish said his intentions were simple in posing the question to McCain. The former Joe Biden campaign worker stressed he is very concerned about the Republican presidential nominee’s temperament.

“We have a man whose temper can get the best of him,” Parrish said. “What I am worried about is his temper.”

For background on the anecdote recounted in Schecter’s book, read this post at MyDD.

I’ve said before that the public needs to become aware of McCain’s anger management problem. Kudos to Parrish for asking a question none of the journalists assigned to McCain’s campaign would dare ask.

And just to show that no candidate is wrong 100 percent of the time, McCain made some sensible remarks about the farm bill yesterday.

Joe Trippi wrote an interesting piece for Campaigns and Elections called “What I Should Have Told John Edwards.”

Trippi regrets that when Edwards asked him if he should drop out of the presidential race, he

didn’t go with my gut.

I didn’t tell him what I should have told him: That I had this feeling that if he stayed in the race he would win 300 or so delegates by Super Tuesday and have maybe a one-in-five chance of forcing a brokered convention. That there was a path ahead that would be extremely painful, but could very well put him and his causes at the top of the Democratic agenda. And that in politics anything can happen-even the possibility that in an open convention with multiple ballots an embattled and exhausted party would turn to him as their nominee. I should have closed my eyes to the pain I saw around me on the campaign bus, including my own. I should have told him emphatically that he should stay in. My regret that I did not do so-that I let John Edwards down-grows with every day that the fight between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama continues.

[…]

It was a longshot, to be sure, but there remained the chance of a three-way battle going all the way to the convention. I thought we could make a big dent in Ohio by appealing to middle-class working people. The same in places like Kansas, Colorado and the Dakotas. It was possible to make those a dead-heat for all three candidates in terms of delegate wins. And today, as I write this, I realize we might have had as many as 500 delegates heading into Pennsylvania and North Carolina, two states that would probably be strong for Edwards.

That would mean Edwards, Obama and Clinton would go into the convention without any of them close to sealing the nomination. You would have had months of Obama and Clinton banging away at each other, with Edwards able to come across to weary Democrats as a welcome, fresh face. You’d have the electability argument begin to play to Edwards’ advantage, since he always did well against McCain in polling. These possibilities and more played through my mind.

Let me make clear that in January, I was 100 percent behind Edwards staying in the race until the convention, even though it was obvious after the New Hampshire primary that his chance of becoming the nominee was virtually zero.

I wrote front-page diaries for the national blog MyDD on Ten Reasons for Sticking with John Edwards and why all Democrats should be glad to see Edwards stay in the race. That second piece included the following passage:

The bottom line for me is that Edwards is talking about the issues in a way that Clinton and Obama never have and never will. In the debates, his campaign rallies, and his television advertisements, he is calling attention to problems that the corporate media filter out all too often.

Many Obama supporters are frustrated that Edwards has not dropped out of the race and endorsed their candidate. They think he is only splitting the anti-Hillary vote.

I think everyone should be happy that Edwards will hang in there, even though others are currently favored to win the nomination. I believe that the Republican hate machine will not unload on Clinton or Obama until they are certain that Edwards is out of the race. Since Obama has not yet faced tough scrutiny from the media, it is all the more important for Edwards to stay in the mix.

Since January the Democratic primary race has degenerated into identity politics and personal attacks, with little focus on issues Edwards brought to the table, like the excesses of corporate power.

Nor has his departure brought the Democratic contest to a rapid conclusion. When Edwards was on one of the talk shows in late March (I think it was Leno), he said that when he dropped out, he expected that the Democratic nominee would have been decided by mid-March. So quitting the race didn’t achieve the goal he had in mind.

In my heart, like Trippi, I feel disappointed that Edwards did not stay in for the duration. If he had been there for the debates, the moderators might have asked a few more substantive questions, or the Clinton and Obama campaigns might have altered their own strategies.

On the other hand, I doubt very much that given the media environment of late January, Edwards could have won 300 delegates on Super Tuesday, as Trippi suggests. If he had won fewer than 100 delegates, the pressure on him to drop out would have been so overwhelming (with major donors and superdelegates jumping ship) that I doubt he would have had a very good showing in Ohio on March 4.

My head tells me that one way or another, the media and the Democratic power-brokers would have been able to force Edwards out long before the primaries in Pennsylvania, Indiana and North Carolina.

What do you think? Leaving aside whether you think Edwards had any chance of winning the nomination at a brokered convention, do you think the Democratic Party and our eventual nominee would have been better served by having him stay in the race longer?

Got this press release from Ed Fallon’s campaign today:

Fallon Receives PCCI-A Endorsement

Thursday, May 1, 2008 (3:30 PM CDT) – Ed Fallon today announced his endorsement by the Progressive Coalition of Central Iowa – Action (PCCI-A). Board President Vern Naffier notified Fallon today that the board of PCCI-A had voted unanimously to support him in his bid to unseat incumbent Congressman Leonard Boswell in Iowa’s Third District.

Fallon expressed his gratitude for the endorsement, saying, “I’m grateful to have the support of PCCI-A. These folks are community activists who have been working on issues that have always been a focus of my own political and community involvement.”

Earlier in the campaign, one of PCCI-A’s member organizations, STAR*PAC, also endorsed Fallon’s candidacy.

PCCI-A is a 501(c)(5) corporation that exists separately from PCCI, a 501(c)(3) organization. Naffier acknowledged that PCCI-A would not be making a financial contribution, as Fallon does not accept contributions from PACs and paid lobbyists.

Even if Fallon took money from PACs, the value of an endorsement like this can’t be measured in dollars.

It’s obvious that Congressman Leonard Boswell will be able to outspend Fallon in the traditional paid media, and it seems unlikely that Boswell will take a chance and debate Fallon on the issues.

Fallon’s best chance is to mobilize large numbers of progressive foot-soldiers, such as those in PCCI-A, to get out the vote for him. These people are well-known in their neighborhoods and have large social networks.

I don’t expect a very high turnout on June 3. This race is winnable for Fallon with enough people pounding the pavement for him.

An Edwards supporter I’m still in touch with online brought these links to my attention, and I felt they were worth sharing. A few weeks ago, both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton appeared at a “Compassion Forum” and answered some questions about God and prayer backstage.

The Christian Broadcasting Network’s website has some transcripts and audio clips. Here is

Obama answering the question, “In the quiet moments of your day, what do you pray for?” (click through for the audio link)

“I pray throughout the day but at night before I go to bed I have a fairly simple prayer. I ask that God forgives me for my sins. I thank him for all that he has given me especially my family which is a great treasure. I ask that he give peace to people in need and people in trouble and I ask that he makes me an instrument of his will. I figure that covers a lot of ground.”

That’s a good prayer, and it certainly does cover a lot of ground.

I was blown away by Hillary’s response to the question, “When you stand before God, what might a question be that you’ll ask Him?” (this is an excerpt, click through for the whole text):

I would ask how could a loving God have let so much despair, suffering and pain be part of the human experience? What were you teaching us? What were you modeling for us? We know that you had your son suffer excruciatingly and he died for us and I can’t thank you enough for that gift but so many people who seem so innocent have also suffered so much. Was there any point at which you thought you could perhaps just you know, reach out and just lessen it a little or did you expect us to do that? Was that our job? Is that what we were called to do with the gifts that you gave onto us?”

All I can say is, I would like to be there when God answers those questions.

Speaking of religion and politics, I have avoided writing about Reverend Jeremiah Wright, because I don’t feel I have anything unique to add to the discussion.

Obviously, I don’t believe Obama agrees with the more offensive comments Wright has made. On the contrary, this conjecture by Obama supporter Matthew Yglesias has the ring of truth for me:

it’ll hurt him electorally because Obama’s going to have a hard time explaining that I take to be the truth, namely that his relationship with Trinity has been a bit cynical from the beginning. After all, before Obama was a half-black guy running in a mostly white country he was a half-white guy running in a mostly black neighborhood. At that time, associating with a very large, influential, local church with black nationalist overtones was a clear political asset (it’s also clear in his book that it made him, personally, feel “blacker” to belong to a slightly kitschy black church). Since emerging onto a larger stage, it’s been the reverse and Obama’s consistently sought to distance himself from Wright, disinviting him from his campaign’s launch, analogizing him to a crazy uncle who you love but don’t listen to, etc.

So I am not the least bit worried that Obama shares Wright’s views.

I do get depressed thinking about the endless attack ads that will feature Wright’s inflammatory remarks (juxtaposed with Obama not putting his hand over his heart and Michelle Obama saying this is the first time in her adult life she’s been proud to be an American). It fits so well with the typical Republican playbook against Democrats: brand them as extremist and unpatriotic.

At least this has come out in the spring, rather than after Labor Day, when it could have done the most damage to our likely presidential nominee. On the other hand, I’m annoyed that Obama was able to keep Reverend Wright under wraps until after most of the states had voted.

If Wright had been a household name six months ago, I do not believe Obama would have won the Iowa caucuses.

When I think of all the Obama supporters and leaners who told me last year that John Edwards was unelectable because he has a big house and got an expensive haircut, I just shake my head. Some people imagined that Obama’s media honeymoon would never end, and the Republicans wouldn’t be able to dig up anything damaging about him.

UPDATE: My husband and I loved Jon Stewart’s segment on the media’s coverage of Reverend Wright during The Daily Show on Wednesday. Catch the rerun on Thursday if you can.

A envelope from the Boswell campaign arrived in the mail today. Inside was a letter from Al Gore asking me to donate $20.00 to Boswell’s campaign, symbolizing the 2000 election “when Leonard stood by my side”. The text was identical to a recent e-mail Gore sent out on Boswell’s behalf, which I reproduced at the end of this post.

Unlike Matt Stoller, who is mad that Gore is helping Boswell’s campaign, I can’t fault him for getting involved. It won’t change the minds of many Gore voters like myself, who favor Fallon, but it might activate other Gore supporters who are unreliable primary voters.

Frankly, I’m more annoyed at Gore for sitting out this presidential election. He would have been a much better candidate, and probably a much better president, than either Hillary or Obama.  

But what’s done is done.

Getting back to the third district primary, I received a copy of an e-mail sent out by Wesley Clark’s political action committee, WesPAC, which solicits donations for the Congressional campaigns of three veterans, including Boswell. Here are the relevant portions of that e-mail:

Dear [Recipient],

We need veterans like Ashwin Madia, Tim Walz, and Leonard Boswell in Congress to lead us out of Iraq  and to support our troops. Click  here to donate to their campaigns today!

It’s no surprise that a war veteran, Senator Jim Webb,  has led the fight in expanding the GI Bill to give our troops the  education benefits they were promised. Those who have worn the uniform know first-hand how much our troops have sacrificed and what it takes to  support members of the armed forces.

That’s why it was critical our community helped elect  Jim Webb in 2006, and it’s also the reason I’m backing three veterans who  are running for Congress this fall. Though 30,000 Americans have signed a  petition in support of Senator Webb’s GI Bill, our opponents are already  weakening the bill because it is too “generous” for our troops.  We need more veterans in Congress who will help bring our soldiers home  from Iraq and stand up for those who have defended our nation.

Join me and support veteran candidates Ashwin  Madia, Tim Walz, and Leonard Boswell by donating to their campaigns  today!

[…]

Leonard  Boswell

In 2006, WesPAC helped Leonard Boswell fight off a  “swiftboat” attempt on him in Iowa, and our efforts helped  re-elect Leonard. As a 20-year veteran of the Army, he too supports an  expanded GI Bill for our veterans and has pushed for increases in funding  for the Department of Veterans Affairs.

We can’t afford to lose a true American hero like  Leonard in Congress, and we can’t take it for granted that the right-wing  won’t smear him again this November. Help re-elect Congressman Boswell  by donating to his campaign now!

http://www.actblue.com/page/3vets

The insight of those who serve in the armed forces is  too often lost in our nation’s dialogue about foreign policy, health  care, education, and veterans issues. With your support, we’ll strengthen  the voices of those who have risked their lives for our country by sending 3 veterans to Congress in 2008.

Thank you for your support.

Sincerely,

Wes Clark

I wish Boswell or one of his high-profile supporters would defend the Congressional votes that prompted Ed Fallon to run in this primary. But from the incumbent’s perspective, the less said about that, the better.

I posted this around the blogosphere on Monday, but forgot to cross-post here. -desmoinesdem

Congressman Leonard Boswell’s campaign has been giving the incumbent an image makeover as the June 3 primary approaches.

I learned from direct-mail pieces this month that Boswell is “Taking on George Bush for the Changes We Need,” as well as “working to bring the troops home every day” and “Taking on powerful interests” to deliver health care to all Iowans.

These campaign communications bring to mind Ralph Waldo Emerson’s quote: “What you do shouts so loudly in my ears I cannot hear what you say.”

Progressive Kick has created a website that shows in quite an entertaining way what Boswell has been doing during his six terms in Congress. Let’s just say he hasn’t been much of a crusader against powerful interests.

Join me after the jump for more.

The conservative pundits who favored Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani or Fred Thompson for president are fully on board with John McCain, but he still has a big problem with other elements of the conservative base.

Exhibit A: the results from the GOP primary in Pennsylvania last week. More than two months after it became clear that McCain would be the GOP nominee, he gained just under 73 percent of the vote from Pennsylvania Republicans. Ron Paul got almost 16 percent (more than 128,000 votes), and Mike Huckabee got about 11 percent (more than 91,000 votes).

Think about that. More than 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania went to the trouble of voting for someone other than McCain last Tuesday.

McCain did the worst in conservative counties where Republicans need to run up big margins to have any hope of winning statewide in Pennsylvania:

Mr. McCain’s worst showing was in Juniata County, near the center of the state. He received only about 59 percent of the vote, while Mr. Paul took nearly 28 percent. In 2004, President Bush won Juniata with 72 percent of the vote.

Mr. Bush had his biggest win that year in southern Fulton County, with 76 percent of the vote. Mr. McCain picked up 71 percent there, but Mr. Huckabee had 21 percent, his highest percentage in the state.

The conservative Washington Times has more bad news for McCain:

The McCain campaign has said it is on the same timeline for uniting the Republican Party as then-Gov. George W. Bush in 2000. In that year, Mr. Bush won 73 percent of the Republican vote in Pennsylvania’s primary, held April 4. His biggest challenger was McCain himself, who won 23 percent, despite having dropped out of the campaign weeks earlier.

But McCain was a far more imposing figure in 2000 than Paul and Huckabee were in 2008, and McCain has also had more time before Pennsylvania to consolidate his lead than Bush had in 2000. To continue to post less-than-dominant showings will only prolong talk that McCain has more work to do within his own party.

And to truly match Bush’s 2000 performance may be out of the question for McCain. Out of 18.5 million votes cast in the primaries so far he has won 43.2 percent. By contrast, Bush finished 2000 with 62 percent of the Republican primary vote.

Then I learned from this diary by sarahlane that Ron Paul says he doesn’t plan to campaign for McCain, and Paul supporters outnumbered McCain supporters at the Nevada Republican Party’s state convention last weekend.

Finally, the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch has filed a complaint against McCain with the Federal Elections Commission. If you’re too young to remember Judicial Watch, this group repeatedly attacked Bill Clinton’s administration in the 1990s.

Click the link to read the MyDD post by Jonathan Singer. Judicial Watch’s FEC complaint relates to a possibly illegal in-kind contribution from a foreign national to McCain’s campaign.

As I’ve mentioned before, prominent bloggers have filed a separate FEC complaint relating to McCain’s failure to abide by the spending limits imposed on candidates who agree to take public matching funds during the presidential primaries.

Buried at the end of a detailed post on the dueling delegate counts provided by the Clinton and Obama campaigns, Chris Bowers put forward a great idea for a Michigan/Florida compromise:

If I were in charge, I would seat Florida’s pledged delegates as is, and seat the pledged delegates from Michigan Clinton 73-55 Obama. From that point, I would strip both states of their superdelegates. This way, the voters of the two states are not punished, but the superdelegates who are responsible putting both states in this mess are. I actually think that this should become the standard punishment for states that flout the primary calendar: keep the pledged delegates, but strip the superdelegates with no possibility of reinstatement. I also really like the idea of superdelegates whining that they should be seated at the convention. That would be an hilarious press conference.

I have written before that it would be suicide for Obama to go into the general election campaign having argued for ignoring the primary votes in Michigan and Florida. I was open to a revote, but the Obama campaign made sure that didn’t happen in either state. Bowers’ idea makes a lot of sense to me. Rank and file voters should not be punished for the screwups of party leaders.

Meanwhile, JedReport put up a good diary at Daily Kos blaming the superdelegates for prolonging the primary election campaign.  

I think the extended race is on balance good for the Democrats, because voters are being energized all over the country (click here to read about the surge in Democratic voter registration in Oregon).

But if you’re an Obama supporter who’s frustrated that the race continues, JedReport’s diary indicates that your anger at the Clinton campaign or the media is misplaced. The superdelegates could have brought down the curtain on this race two months ago, but they have stood on the sidelines.

My only quibble with JedReport is that the pledged delegate count, which he thinks should guide the superdelegates’ decision, does not necessarily reflect the will of the people.

So far there have been at least two states (NV and TX) where Obama emerged with more pledged delegates despite having fewer people turn out to support him.

Also, the caucus systems in many states produced lopsided delegate counts that (in my view) do not reflect the will of the voters. Does anyone really think that Minnesota Democrats would have favored Obama over Hillary by a 2-1 margin in a primary?

Not only that, one caucus-goer in Wyoming had as much influence over the pledged delegate race as 19 primary voters in California (here is the link).

I’m for changing the system to ban caucuses for purposes of presidential candidate selection. Also, I would want to change the way pledged delegates are allocated so that no candidate could lose the popular vote in a state while winning the pledged delegate count.

Of course, this does not excuse the strategic failure of the Clinton campaign to have a game plan for the caucus states.

But if we are going to ban superdelegates, or require superdelegates to get behind the pledged delegate leader, then we better have a more equitable system for allocating the pledged delegates. It’s wrong for Obama to net as many pledged delegates from a low-turnout caucus state as Hillary netted in the Ohio primary blowout.

Over at Daily Kos, Markos has a post up about “Clinton’s shameless hypocrisy on the fuel tax”:

   Hillary Rodham Clinton on Monday criticized Barack Obama for opposing the concept of suspending the gas tax during the peak summer driving months, a plan both she and Republican John McCain have endorsed.

   The idea to suspend the 18.4 cent federal gas tax and 24.4 cent diesel tax from Memorial Day to Labor Day was first proposed by McCain, the likely Republican presidential nominee, as a way to ease the economic burden for consumers during the summer.

   Obama does not support the “gas tax holiday” and has said the average motorist would not benefit significantly from such a suspension; by some estimates, the federal government would lose about $10 billion in revenue.

   “My opponent, Senator Obama, opposes giving consumers a break,” Clinton said, campaigning in North Carolina. “I understand the American people need some relief.”

For once I agree with Markos–this is a bad, bad move by Hillary Clinton. His main point is that she’s a huge hypocrite, because she argued against a similar gas tax holiday when she was running for the Senate in 2000.

Even worse from my perspective, she has flipped to supporting a horrendous idea floated by McCain. I explained why suspending the gas tax is is bad policy in this post.

It’s bad politics as well, because Hillary adopts the Republican “tax relief” frame to score a political point against our likely Democratic presidential nominee. She should never suggest that McCain is more sensitive to the needs of consumers than Obama is. That is flat-out wrong.

This is not how she should be making her case against Obama.  

Poligirl wrote a good diary about an op-ed piece by Elizabeth Edwards in today’s New York Times: “Bowling 1, Health Care 0.”

She slammed the media for its superficial coverage of the presidential campaign during the past year, and particularly during the weeks leading up to the Pennsylvania primary:

Did you, for example, ever know a single fact about Joe Biden’s health care plan? Anything at all? But let me guess, you know Barack Obama’s bowling score. We are choosing a president, the next leader of the free world. We are not buying soap, and we are not choosing a court clerk with primarily administrative duties.

Political junkie that I am, I do know something about Joe Biden’s health care plan (no thanks to the mainstream media). Elizabeth Edwards tells it like it is:

What’s more, the news media cut candidates like Joe Biden out of the process even before they got started. Just to be clear: I’m not talking about my husband. I’m referring to other worthy Democratic contenders. Few people even had the chance to find out about Joe Biden’s health care plan before he was literally forced from the race by the news blackout that depressed his poll numbers, which in turn depressed his fund-raising.

And it’s not as if people didn’t want this information. In focus groups that I attended or followed after debates, Joe Biden would regularly be the object of praise and interest: “I want to know more about Senator Biden,” participants would say.

But it was not to be. Indeed, the Biden campaign was covered more for its missteps than anything else. Chris Dodd, also a serious candidate with a distinguished record, received much the same treatment. I suspect that there was more coverage of the burglary at his campaign office in Hartford than of any other single event during his run other than his entering and leaving the campaign.

Who is responsible for the veil of silence over Senator Biden? Or Senator Dodd? Or Gov. Tom Vilsack? Or Senator Sam Brownback on the Republican side?

The decision was probably made by the same people who decided that Fred Thompson was a serious candidate.

I said many times last year that if Biden had the media hype Obama was getting, he would be a strong contender for the nomination. He had a great stump speech and performed better in every debate than Obama did, but all you heard from the leading analysts was that Biden was a gaffe machine.

Thanks again to poligirl for including a link to an audio interview of Elizabeth Edwards talking about her op-ed piece.

How many presidential campaigns will our infotainment complex get wrong before they finally give people the news coverage they deserve?

Very dishonest.

Over at MyDD, Josh Orton picked up on a story from Sunday’s New York Times, which

exposes two more broken McCain pledges: to not to fly on corporate jets, and to not exploit his wife’s wealth for campaign advantage.

First, the campaign finance side – by exploiting a loophole left open by the non-functioning FEC, McCain flew for months on a corporate jet owned by his wife’s company, but only paid a fraction of the cost […]

Not only is he exploiting a loophole to save millions, he’s actually going back on an earlier pledge. In early 2007, McCain’s campaign swore off the practice of using corporate jets […]

Oh yeah, and McCain is also breaking a promise not to use his wife’s vast wealth for his presidential campaign. Click over to Orton’s diary for details on that.

Meanwhile, the Huffington Post had a good write-up of McCain’s recent visit to New Orleans. The candidate criticized the Bush administration’s handling of Hurricane Katrina, but conveniently failed to mention his many Senate votes “against relief measures for Katrina victims” and “against an investigation into the failures of the government response” to Katrina. The article notes that “McCain also voted against providing additional funding for first responders’ communication systems”.

If you click that link you can also view a slide show of George Bush and John McCain celebrating with a birthday cake for McCain in Arizona on August 29, 2005, the day the levees broke in New Orleans.

Speaking of McCain in New Orleans, MoveOn.Org sent out an e-mail with details on the results of

its recent petition drive, and the media coverage they were able to generate:

Amazing. The very morning that John McCain visited New Orleans, 140,000 of us signed a petition calling on him to reject the support of extreme right-wing evangelist John Hagee, who said that Hurricane Katrina was a case of God punishing the city for its sins. At the same time, a group of local MoveOn members rallied outside his town hall event with the same message. McCain was asked about the issue at the event, and again by reporters after.

Almost instantly, the fact that McCain was pandering to the far right while playing “centrist” in the Big Easy became a national news story. The Associated Press and Reuters covered our actions, and the New York Times, Boston Globe, and MSNBC all reported on the disturbing links between Hagee, McCain, and the city of New Orleans.1

Best of all, the Baltimore Sun quoted New Orleans MoveOn member Harry Greenberg as saying, “Shame on John McCain for using New Orleans for a photo op while still courting support from hatemongers like Hagee.”2

A big “thank you” to the New Orleans MoveOn members who bravely spoke out for all of us against McCain’s courtship of hatemongers. And thanks to all of you who reacted so quickly to support them. We’ll be spending a lot more time in the next few months telling the truth about John McCain, and we’re glad you’re part of the effort.

-Eli, Daniel, Wes, Laura, and the MoveOn.org Political Action Team

 Sunday, April 27th, 2008

P.S. If you want to get involved with rapid response actions like Thursday’s rally in New Orleans, consider joining your local MoveOn Council. You can join a council near you by clicking here:

http://operationdemocracy.org?…

Sources:

1. “McCain sharply critical of Bush response to Katrina,” Reuters, April 24, 2008

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=3612…

“McCain to New Orleans: Never Again,” Associated Press, April 24, 2008

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=3613…

“McCain Goes Where Few Republicans Dare, Deep in Democrats’ Territory,” New York Times, April 26, 2008

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=3614…

“Hagee retracts Katrina comment,” Boston Globe, April 25, 2008

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=3615…

“McCain criticizes Bush, Congress on Hurricanes,” MSNBC, April 24, 2008 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24…

2. “MoveOn calls for McCain move on Hagee,” Baltimore Sun, April 24, 2008

Progressive Democrats of America, a grassroots political action committee (PAC) created in 2004, endorsed Ed Fallon today in the Democratic primary to represent Iowa’s third Congressional district. The Des Moines chapter of the group had previously endorsed Fallon last month.

A press release from the Fallon campaign quoted the candidate as saying,

“PDA is pleased that I’m challenging Congressman Boswell due to his record on voting with the Republicans to support President Bush’s agenda on the Iraq War, the PATRIOT Act, warrantless surveillance, torture, ‘free-trade’ agreements, bankruptcy ‘reform’ that hurts the middle class, and billions in corporate welfare for big oil and gas companies.”

[…]

“Because I’ve never taken money from PACs or paid lobbyists, PDA won’t be making a contribution to my campaign,” Fallon said, “but they will encourage their members to make individual contributions. They want to help give our next president a Democratic congressman who will support progressive, Democratic policies.”

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

Other national organizations that have endorsed Fallon include eQualityGiving and Democracy for America.

Des Moines Register reporter Thomas Beaumont wrote an article for Thursday’s edition about the Boswell’s campaign’s Ralph Nader direct-mail pieces, which I diaried here and here.

I had been wondering why Boswell was playing the Nader card with six weeks to go in the campaign, and Beaumont advances a strong hypothesis:

The two mailings circulated this week in Iowa’s 3rd District mark a stepped-up effort by Boswell, a six-term Des Moines Democrat, to cast doubt on Fallon’s loyalty to the party. The mailings coincide with the distribution of absentee ballots for the June 3 primary.

Meanwhile, Al Gore sent out an e-mail fundraising appeal on behalf of Boswell, which I’ve put after the jump.

In other news, KCCI television released the first public poll of the Democratic primary in the third district. It shows Boswell leading Fallon 52-28, with 20 percent undecided. Boswell’s campaign manager, Mark Daley, said the poll shows

what we’ve seen all along. We’ve got a congressman who’s been there. Who’s been very effective” […]

Fallon told KCCI:

“If I were Boswell, I’d be really concerned that only 52 percent of Democrats was supporting me. An incumbent is usually a lot better after serving for 12 years,” […]

“People are very unhappy with Boswell’s continued support for the war. His lack of leadership on environmental issues,” Fallon said.

My big question about this poll is what turnout model did KCCI use? I don’t think anyone in either campaign has any idea how many Democrats will vote in this primary. About 38,000 people in the third district voted in the June 2006 gubernatorial primary.

Fallon presumably has a better chance if turnout is low, because his supporters are highly motivated to vote for him, and his campaign is focused on a field operation to identify those supporters.

Boswell has better name recognition and more money to spend on paid media, so he would probably benefit from high turnout in the primary.

It’s hard to keep up with all the reasons to oppose John McCain. Last night I wrote about his opposition to a bill that would make it easier for victims of job discrimination to seek legal redress.

If you care about that issue, you can sign the petition on “Equal Pay for Equal Work” at Momsrising.org.

Meanwhile, I learned from this diary by TomP that Friends of the Earth Action is running an ad against McCain on CNN. The ad highlights McCain’s support for the nuclear power industry:

TomP’s diary also includes this great quote from Friends of the Earth Action president Dr. Brent Blackwalder:

You know how self righteous John McCain can be when he talks about corporate pork and earmarks, but do you know why he opposes the Lieberman-Warner global warming bill?  He plans to vote against it not because it could lavish $1 trillion on the profitable oil, gas and coal industries, but because he wants to add hundreds of billions of dollars more in earmarks for the nuclear industry!

On a related note, I got an e-mail today from the Sierra Club slamming McCain’s proposal to suspend the federal gas tax between Memorial Day and Labor Day. The Sierra Club notes that the real effect of that policy would be to

[r]aise oil company profits by another 18 cents per gallon — by eliminating the federal gas tax without guaranteeing that Big Oil won’t just keep prices high and take the difference to grow their record profits even more.

The Sierra Club also has an online petition you can sign, which sends this message to McCain:

The best way to deal with high gas prices is to cut, not expand, giveaways to Big Oil. Please vote to end taxpayer-funded subsidies and tax breaks for Big Oil and use that money to invest in clean, renewable energy.

Earlier this week, I got the latest newsletter from Smart Growth America, which also blasted McCain’s proposal to declare a summer holiday from the federal gas tax:

An artificial and temporary reduction of gas prices will simply guarantee that absolutely no money goes towards having suitable roads and bridges for those filled-up cars to drive on – not to mention alternatives to congestion, like commuter rail and transit. Instead, we can send the full price of gasoline directly into the pockets of oil companies. (An estimated $10 billion in transportation revenue would be lost, or enough to fully fund Amtrak rail service for 6 years or so.) Meanwhile, we fall farther behind in maintaining our infrastructure: Rust doesn’t take the summer off.

But that’s not all. To coincide with McCain’s photo-op in New Orleans’ Ninth Ward today, Moveon.org Political Action launched its own online petition calling on McCain to reject the endorsement of right-wing pastor John Hagee. I knew about Hagee’s anti-Catholic bigotry, but I wasn’t aware that Hagee once said, “Hurricane Katrina was, in fact, the judgment of God against the city of New Orleans.”

Surely there couldn’t be any more shameful news about McCain to emerge within this 24-hour period, right? Wrong. I learned from Natasha Chart’s post at MyDD today that during a recent visit to Alabama, McCain’s campaign used free prison labor to get out of paying to set up for a private fundraiser.

I guess a campaign that is way behind its Democratic rivals in fundraising has to save money wherever it can.

But it would be more honest for McCain to curtail all campaign spending between now and the Republican National Convention this summer, because he is not complying with limits imposed by his decision to take public financing last year.

If I’ve missed any recent disgraceful behavior coming from the McCain camp, please let me know in the comments section.

One of the worst rulings the Roberts Court has handed down was in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. The five-member conservative majority ruled that the plaintiff lost her right to file a discrimination complaint related to unequal pay because she didn’t file the lawsuit within 180 days of the first discriminatory action by her employer.

Never mind that Lilly Ledbetter didn’t know for many years that she was being short-changed by her employer, which was paying male colleagues substantially more for doing the same job.

The U.S. House passed a bill seeking to remedy this egregious ruling last July. The Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act

would put into law a clarification – wage disparity based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, and disability is not a one-time occurrence. Every discriminatory paycheck represents an ongoing violation. Employees would still have 180 days to challenge the discrimination, but from the last check, not the first.

You would think everyone would recognize the value of this bill. Does it make sense for the courts to grant legal immunity to employers that manage to keep their discriminatory behavior a secret for many months? Or does it make sense to allow employees to file a lawsuit within 180 days of the time they have learned about the violations?

The U.S. Senate took up this bill today, and Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama took time off from the presidential campaign to go back to Washington and vote for it.

But John McCain skipped the vote. Though 56 Senators voted in favor, Republicans were able to block it with a filibuster. McCain confirmed today that he would have opposed this bill if he’d been in the Senate chamber:

“I am all in favor of pay equity for women, but this kind of legislation, as is typical of what’s being proposed by my friends on the other side of the aisle, opens us up to lawsuits for all kinds of problems,” the expected GOP presidential nominee told reporters. “This is government playing a much, much greater role in the business of a private enterprise system.”

Right, he’s “all in favor” of equal pay–he just doesn’t want women who are denied equal pay to be able to seek legal remedy for that discrimination.

Clearly wage discrimination doesn’t bother McCain nearly as much as the idea that we might have more women filing lawsuits against employers who have been cheating them for years.

If you know any women who might lean toward McCain because they think he is a reasonable moderate, let them know about his stand on this issue.

Ed Fallon’s campaign put out a press release yesterday challenging Congressman Leonard Boswell to agree to debate him. I’ve put the whole release after the jump, but here is a key excerpt:

Fallon has received invitations to eight debates and has accepted them all. “Unfortunately,” Fallon said, “Boswell has declined debate invitations from WHO Radio, the League of Women Voters, and Women for a Stronger America. Some of these groups have issued multiple invitations since February and have yet to receive any response from the Boswell campaign.”

“Clearly, with our economy in shambles, skyrocketing gas prices and no end in sight to the Iraq War, voters want to know how Boswell and I differ in our plans to address these and other pressing issues,” Fallon said.

Debate organizers have told Fallon’s staff that the Boswell campaign insists the Congressman is too busy in Washington to participate. “That’s puzzling,” Fallon said, “since the Congressman made time for the Drake Relays Parade this weekend and appears able to attend many fundraisers. I think in this case, actions speak louder than words.”

I contacted Boswell’s campaign to find out if he had indeed cited his busy Washington schedule as an excuse not to debate Fallon.

Press secretary Betsy Shelton e-mailed me today to say, “We are currently working with KCCI and the Des Moines Register to see if we can find a date that is mutually acceptable.”

Here’s hoping the candidates will debate at least once or twice before June 3.

Fallon’s press release also responds to recent direct-mail pieces from the Boswell campaign highlighting Fallon’s support for Ralph Nader in 2000. Click “there’s more” to read the whole thing.

The Polk County Democrats sent out an e-mail request from the Iowa House Democrats. Someone who will be managing a Democratic House candidate’s campaign is coming to Des Moines for training next week and will need housing in Polk County the nights of April 29 and 30.

If you have a spare room or fold-out couch for a campaign manager next week, please call Mehgan Lee Operations Manager/Deputy Finance Director for the Iowa House Democrats:

Work: (515) 974-1702

Her cell phone number was also in the e-mail, but I’m not going to post that on a public blog.

Looks like Hillary is winning this thing by about 10 percent, 55-45 with 94 percent reporting.

If you just consider Pennsylvania’s demographics, that isn’t too surprising. However, we’re coming out of a month in which she was massively outspent by Obama, and the media narrative has been that she is unlikely to win the nomination now.

The official memo from the Obama campaign notes that Clinton failed to make significant gains in the pledged-delegate count. True, but what does it say about Obama that he couldn’t close the deal despite spending more than his opponent and having generally more favorable media coverage?

As a memo from the Clinton campaign pointed out earlier today, Obama spent a lot of money on negative advertising and negative direct-mail pieces in Pennsylvania. He still couldn’t make the sale.

I like the way Todd Beeton (a Clinton voter in the California primary) reacted to the spin from Obama-leaning analysts at MSNBC:

I have to say I was amused to hear Keith Olbermann announce with child-like glee at 8:01pm that the race was too close to call and how that had to make the Clinton campaign nervous. The subtext of his enthusiasm was clearly shadenfreude that Hillary Clinton was going to underperform expectations. I thought to myself: where the hell has he been? Time after time exit polls overestimate Barack Obama’s performance, not to mention that on election nights past, namely Feb 5th and March 4th, neither California nor Ohio, solid Clinton wins both, was called for her right away either. And sure enough, 93% in and she’s still up by the magic 10%.

Then just a few minutes ago, Keith asked an uncomfortable Tom Brokaw whether it is wise for Hillary Clinton to be Bush to Obama’s Gore in Bush v. Gore.

Riiight.

Seriously, at what point are these guys going to start holding their own candidate accountable for why this thing is still going on instead of complaining that Hillary is competing in contests that she is winning.

But Todd, didn’t you know that the Clintons are evil, and everything bad that happens to Obama is orchestrated by them?

I am glad that Clinton didn’t listen to the Obama fan clubbers who demanded that she drop out a month ago. There was record-breaking turnout today in a state that has not influenced the nominating process in recent history. Oh yeah, and Democrats made huge gains in voter registration in a critical swing state this past month.

In other news, a Democrat almost won a special election in Mississippi’s deep-red first Congressional district. Looking like a great year to be a Democrat!

My husband dumped this in the recycling bin today, thinking it was the same mailing we got from Congressman Leonard Boswell’s campaign yesterday. But no, although it uses the same color scheme and the same “scary font,” this is indeed a separate mailing emphasizing Ed Fallon’s support for Ralph Nader in 2000.

I’ve transcribed the piece that arrived today after the jump.

What’s going to happen in Pennsylvania today?

Markos predicts a Clinton victory by 8 percent and more than 200,000 votes:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyo…

Obama supporter poblano backs up his similar prediction with some interesting analysis:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com…

If Obama keeps this one close (within 5 percent), it will be viewed as a blow to Clinton. If she crushes him like she did in Ohio, it will not be enough to win her the nomination, but it will increase doubts about Obama’s ability to close the deal with Democrats. He massively outspent Clinton over the past six weeks in Pennsylvania.

I think Clinton will win, but not in a blowout: 53-47.

Put your predictions in the comments section.

I’ve mentioned before that it’s scandalous for the Washington press corps to cover for John McCain’s legendary anger management problem after the way they collaborated in making Howard Dean and Al Gore look angry and unstable.

Washington Post reporter Michael Leahy wrote this long article on McCain’s temperament for the paper’s Sunday edition. Read the whole thing. It begins with an anecdote about McCain blowing up at Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley in 1992, and Republicans who know McCain share many other stories as well.

One of the most appalling discusses McCain’s behavior after an election-night victory party for Arizona Republicans in 1986:

After McCain finished his speech, he returned to a suite in the hotel, sat down in front of a TV and viewed a replay of his remarks, angry to discover that the speaking platform had not been erected high enough for television cameras to capture all of his face — he seemed to have been cut off somewhere between his nose and mouth.

A platform that had been adequate for taller candidates had not taken into account the needs of the 5-foot-9 McCain, who left the suite and went looking for a man in his early 20s named Robert Wexler, the head of Arizona’s Young Republicans, which had helped make arrangements for the evening’s celebration. Confronting Wexler in a hotel ballroom, McCain exploded, according to witnesses who included Jon Hinz, then executive director of the Arizona Republican Party. McCain jabbed an index finger in Wexler’s chest.

“I told you we needed a stage,” he screamed, according to Hinz. “You incompetent little [expletive]. When I tell you to do something, you do it.”

Hinz recalls intervening, placing his 6-foot-6 frame between the senator-elect and the young volunteer. “John, this is not the time or place for this,” Hinz remembers saying to McCain, who fumed that he hadn’t been seen clearly by television viewers. Hinz recollects finally telling McCain: “John, look, I’ll follow you out on stage myself next time. I’ll make sure everywhere you go there is a milk crate for you to stand on. But this is enough.”

McCain spun around on his heels and left. He did not talk to Hinz again for several years. In 2000, as Hinz recalls, he appeared briefly on the Christian Broadcasting Network to voice his worries about McCain’s temperament on televangelist Pat Robertson’s show, “The 700 Club.” Hinz’s concerns have since grown with reports of incidents in and out of Arizona.

We need to educate Americans who think McCain is a reasonable moderate about this side of his personality.

Also worth reading is Elizabeth Edwards’ latest blog post on McCain’s inadequate health care plan.

After she criticized his plan this month, McCain went on “This Week with George Stephanopoulos to call her criticism a “cheap shot.” Elizabeth Edwards had noted that McCain benefited from government health care coverage his whole life, but McCain pointed out that he didn’t have access to good health care while he was a prisoner-of-war in Vietnam.

If McCain was hoping she would feel too bad to respond, he’s out of luck. She points out some important facts:

Sen. McCain noted that he was not receiving government health care for the six years he was in captivity. That is true. But it has nothing to do with my point – which is that the problem with Sen. McCain’s health care plan is not how it affects us — but how it affects the tens of millions of Americans with preexisting conditions who, unlike Sen. McCain and myself, do not have the resources to pay for quality health care.

That is not a cheap shot, it is a potentially life and death question for tens of million of Americans. And it is a question Sen. McCain must address.

McCain’s health care plan is centered around the idea that we’d be better off if more Americans bought health coverage on their own, rather than receiving it through a job or government program. But maybe since he has never purchased insurance in the individual market, he does not know the challenge it presents for Americans with preexisting conditions.

A recent study showed that nearly nine out of every ten people seeking individual coverage on the private insurance market never got it. Insurers will disqualify you for just taking certain medicines because of the possibility of future costs, including common drugs as Lipitor, Zocor, Nexium, and Advair. People who have had cancer are denied coverage and those who get cancer run the risk of simply being dropped by their insurer for any excuse that can be found. And insurers make it a practice to deny coverage to individuals in high risk occupations, such as firefighting, lumber work, telecom installation, and pretty much anything more risky than working in an office.

Read her whole post. She also has a go at McCain’s strange suggestion that he might create a “special Medicaid trust fund” to help cover people with preexisting conditions.

We should go after McCain now–not wait for the Democratic nomination to be settled.

I still don’t have any information about Congressman Leonard Boswell’s internal polling, and six weeks before the June 3 primary, there are still no public polls on this race. However, it’s notable that the Boswell campaign has sent out a negative direct-mail piece focusing on Ed Fallon’s support for Ralph Nader’s 2000 presidential campaign.

My husband and I received the latest mailing today. Most of the text is in a bizarre font, in which the letters are not aligned properly and each letter looks as if a tiny piece has been broken off or torn away. The effect is to make the text look unstable, somewhat like a ransom note.

I know nothing about graphic design and have no idea what this kind of font is called. For lack of a better term, I’m calling it the “scary font” in this post.

After the jump I’ve described the visuals and transcribed the text of this mailer.