Did Barack Obama sell us out by endorsing the new version of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and not showing up to support a filibuster of that bad bill last week?

Are too many Obama supporters in the netroots making up excuses to cover for him?

Or are the bloggers criticizing Obama being way too tough on a guy whose overriding concern has to be to get elected?

Is it right for some activists to say they no longer plan to volunteer for Obama’s campaign because he has failed to stand up for us on FISA?

Here are some links to good diaries exploring those questions.

Nathaniel Ament Stone is sure that Obama’s actions on FISA are better than they appear at first glance: Obama’s Outsmarted Us Again.

Big Tent Democrat argues that Obama is just like any politician and contrasts Obama’s previous statements on retroactive immunity for telecoms with his recent actions.

JedReport thinks the activists vowing not to lift a finger to help Obama (beyond voting for him) are making a big mistake: President McCain Just Got Elected, But That’s Okay.

Mike Lux seems to think the criticism of Obama over FISA is a waste of time, since “there is literally no acceptable way of holding a Democratic Presidential candidate accountable in the last few months before a general election.”

Chris Bowers counters, I Thought I Was Helping Obama. His point is:

First, we lefties are repeatedly told that it is necessary for Democrats to distance themselves from us in order to win elections. However, we are then we are told that we should be quiet in our criticism of Democrats, even though such criticism overtly distances Democrats from us.

I don’t get it. Aren’t we helping Democrats out by distancing them from us? Won’t Obama be helped by news stories about how he has angered the left? Won’t it make him look like he has Sista Soulhaj-ed us, or something? Why is our criticism a negative? Either Obama will be helped by distancing himself from the left, or he won’t. And, if he will be helped by distancing himself from the left, then our criticism should actually help him, especially when it starts to appear in news stories like these:

–National Journal: The Netroots Push Back

–Newsweek: Netroots Angry At Obama

–CBS: Netroots Feel Jilted By Obama Over FISA

Through our criticism of Obama, aren’t the netroots providing exactly the distance from lefties that we have always been told Democrats need to win? And, as such, aren’t we really helping Obama?

Attorney NCrissieB, who has experience with legal arguments surrounding the Fourth Amendment, offers A pragmatist’s view on FISA.

Wmtriallawyer, a vocal supporter of Obama this past year, has a warning: Barack, Take Note: FISA Demonstrates What’s Wrong with Washington. Key excerpt:

Sen. Obama, are you getting to see the problem now? As much as you talk about the partisan rancor that usually stalemates Washington (and I agree with you believe me), you’ve got to watch out for the so-called bipartisan compromises that actually serve noone but a few entrenched interests.

THIS has been the problem in Washington for years now.  The partisan fights occur over issues that actually matter and can benefit the people, and the bipartisan stuff compromises are over insidious stuff that benefits noone but the entrenched few.

Chris Bowers makes a strong case for taking Obama at his word instead of constructing theories about how he secretly agrees with FISA opponents, even as he fails to help stop the bill.

David Sirota notes that Obama has explicitly said, “You should always assume that when I cast a vote or make a statement it is because it is what I believe in.”

The exchange between Salon’s Glenn Greenwald and MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann is worth your time. Here is Greenwald’s original post, which contrasted Olbermann’s scathing commentary about President Bush’s support for FISA a few months ago with Olbermann’s cheering as Barack Obama goes along with the same bill.

Olbermann posted a response that shot to the top of the Daily Kos recommended list, even though he admitted not to have read Greenwald’s entire post.

Greenwald’s next shot was wonderful: Keith Olbermann’s reply and Obama’s secret plan to protect the rule of law.

Then Olbermann changes the subject with a crowd-pleasing diary about Grover Norquist saying Obama is “John Kerry with a tan.” Nice try!

The final vote on FISA will take place after the Senate’s July 4 recess, but efforts to remove the provision granting retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies appear unlikely to succeed.  

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.dailykos.com/story/…

Ian Welsh explains what happened tonight:

The FISA Cloture vote just passed. The Senate will now consider the motion to proceed with the bill, then they’ll head to the bill itself (corrected procedural details, h/t and thanks to CBolt). Various motions will be put forward to strip immunity, odds are they will fail. Then a number of the 80 who voted to restrict debate will vote against FISA so they can say they were against the bill. However this was the real vote, and the rest is almost certainly nothing but kabuki for the rubes.

Obama and McCain were both absent, as was Clinton. Unimpressive, but unsurprising, though I suppose I’m disappointed by Clinton (Obama has made it clear he didn’t intend to try and stop the bill.) Clinton and Obama will claim there was no point since it wasn’t close. But, with their leadership, it might well have gone the other way.

It wasn’t even close. We needed 41 votes to block the cloture motion on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, but the vote went 80-15 against us.

Here is the roll call. I’m proud to say that Tom Harkin was one of the 15 who tried to stop this bad bill from reaching the Senate floor.

I have contempt for Senate Majority leader Harry Reid, who claimed to oppose the bill but voted yes on the cloture motion and did nothing behind the scenes to block this bill either.

He is acting like Joe Lieberman, who bragged about how he voted against confirming Samuel Alito for the Supreme Court, even though he didn’t support the filibuster of that nomination.

Obama wasn’t there for the FISA vote tonight, and it’s disappointing that he didn’t publicly support the filibuster effort. See this post and this one comparing what he said last October about telecom immunity to what he has said about the FISA bill in recent days.

I don’t expect strong leadership from Obama if he does get elected president. He seems too cautious on this and many other issues.  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: June 23, 2008

CONTACT: Josh Dorner, 202.675.2384

             McCain Falls Short on Fuel Economy, Gas Prices

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

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

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

California.

         Statement of Carl Pope, Sierra Club Executive Director

“Senator Obama has demonstrated the real leadership America needs to

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

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

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

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

needs to hit 50 miles per gallon within two decades.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Street speculators gaming the system at the expense of hardworking

Americans.  Meanwhile, Senator McCain continues to oppose the key

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

the clean energy future a reality.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You can view the discontinued seal here.  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Paul Rosenberg still wants John Edwards on the ticket, citing new opinion polls that show he helps Barack Obama more than many other possible running-mates.

Virginia Senator Jim Webb seems to have taken himself out of the running by co-sponsoring a bill to allow offshore oil drilling in Virginia.

Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold seems to have taken himself out of the running by criticizing Obama for opting out of public financing for his general-election campaign.

General James Jones has to be off the list after he accompanied John McCain to a campaign event in Missouri.

As I’ve written before, Obama must above all do no harm with his VP choice. That means he can’t choose anyone who would alienate the Democratic constituencies that favored Hillary Clinton in the primaries. If I were in his position, I would probably choose someone close to the Clintons, like Wes Clark.

However, if Obama doesn’t want to tap someone from the Clinton circle, a number of other choices, including Joe Biden, Bill Richardson and John Edwards, would be ok by me.

If he wants an “old wise man,” I much prefer former Florida Senator Bob Graham to someone like former Georgia Senator Sam Nunn.

I am absolutely, implacably opposed to putting any Republican (such as Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel) on the Democratic ticket. The next president is going to appoint several Supreme Court judges, and I don’t want any conservative to have any chance of becoming president.

Make the case for the running mate of your choice in the comments.

UPDATE: Good discussion about the pros and cons of Biden on the ticket in the comment thread under this diary: Biden Drank Graham’s Milkshake: Veep Audition?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This morning, Barack Obama sent this video an email to supporters explaining his decision to opt out of the public financing system for presidential elections.

Last fall, Obama told Common Cause that he would participate in the system by aggressively pursuing a so-called “fundraising truce” with the Republican nominee.  But as Ambinder noted in his background statements, McCain and his campaign didn’t seem to want to participate.

My thoughts?  I think this is a good decision, especially after witnessing what happened in 2004 by the Republican special interests and 527s.  The problem itself isn’t money in politics but big money in politics…and the fact that there is a lack of regulation in certain arenas and too much regulation in others.  Obama has raised millions of dollars from millions of small-dollar donors.  And he’s publicly asked and demanded that 527s not support him but instead asked for those individuals to directly support his campaign or the Democratic National Committee.  McCain is doing nothing to keep lobbyists and big money from trying to influence the system even though he says he’s committed to a system of reform and clean elections.  McCain says one thing and does another (tacitly, at least, because he allows it to happen).

You can find the full text of Obama’s remarks below the fold.

The only thing that surprises me about Al Gore's endorsement of Barack Obama today is that it took him so long. Obama supporters were hinting that this was in the works way back in November and December. I figured he would come out in February or March (Gore and Hillary Clinton famously did not get along).

I can only assume that either Gore was determined to avoid political controversy after winning the Nobel Prize, or Gore had serious concerns about Obama (such as his openness to expanding our use of coal and nuclear power).

Gore and Obama will appear at a joint rally in Detriot tonight. Obama and John Edwards also did their first joint event in Michigan. Obama wasn't smart enough to get behind a re-vote plan for Michigan this spring, but he is apparently smart enough to realize he goes into the general election in a weak position in that state.

UPDATE: For the video and the liveblog of this event, go here:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008…

I was very pleased to read that Obama “called out the crowd for booing Clinton during Granholm’s introduction. And he’s now praising her effusively.” Good for him.

Seeing Gore in the news makes me think about what might have been different if he had run for president. I believe Obama would have stayed out if Gore had jumped in. Perhaps Edwards would have been forced to withdraw before the early states voted.

But would Gore have beaten Hillary Clinton? I could argue that one either way. What do you think?

SECOND UPDATE: The e-mail Gore sent out on Monday endorsing Obama is after the jump.

The video of Gore endorsing Obama in Detroit on Monday night can be viewed here:

http://my.BarackObama.com/Gore…

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

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

Read, then discuss.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

June 10, 2008

Dear State Convention Delegates and Alternates:

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

John Edwards

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

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

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

Commenting on my latest post about John McCain’s problems with conservative Republicans, Bleeding Heartland user johnnyschad, a onetime young Republican inspired by Ronald Reagan, wondered, “What is a good way to discuss the GOP implosion with die-hard Republicans?”

I wouldn’t know the answer, but Daily Kos user Press to Digitate, a former Republican activist, wrote a good piece on “How to Market Obama to Your Republican Friends.” I didn’t see it when he first published it, but he brought it to my attention in the comment thread below my diary on how to talk to skeptical Democrats about Obama.

Press to Digitate’s diary on “Why Have All the Republicans Gone?” is a useful backgrounder that may give you some ideas for talking to disaffected Republicans.

Devilstower cites a report by the non-partisan Tax Policy Center, which concluded that Obama is proposing a much larger middle-class tax cut than McCain.

Finally, it couldn’t hurt to let Republicans know that Obama picked a “free trade” advocate distrusted by labor unions to be his chief economic policy adviser.

Use this as an open thread to discuss effective talking points to use with Republicans.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cross posted at myDD.

CQ Politics is reporting on the Democratic leadership's desire for a second package to strengthen the economy that largely lines up with Barack Obama's plans. But are Congressional Dems omitting aid to state governments, one of the key planks of Obama's plan?:

Democrats have been contemplating a second effort to inject money this year into the faltering economy. The idea appears to have gained traction, particularly among congressional leaders, since Monday when presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois outlined a $50 billion stimulus proposal that will serve as the centerpiece of a two-week economic tour of battleground states.

Though the prospects for a second stimulus package are slim, the debate gives congressional Democrats an opportunity to rally around Obama.

The massive economic stimulus package enacted in February focused on tax breaks for businesses and rebates for individuals and families.

Obama has proposed a second round of rebate checks, an extension of unemployment insurance, aid to state governments and a new $10 billion fund to help stem the tide of home foreclosures.

He also proposed increasing investment in infrastructure such as roads, schools and bridges.

“There’s a need for additional targeted stimulus,” said Senate Budget Chairman Kent Conrad , D-N.D.

Schumer said infrastructure investment and a second round of rebate checks could be part of the new package, which Democrats are likely to unveil after the July Fourth recess

State government spending is a key prop holding up the economy during a recession. Dem leaders might want to check out the NYT, which pointed out earlier this week:

At $1.8 trillion annually in a $14 trillion economy, the states and municipalities spend almost twice as much as the federal government, including the cost of the Iraq war. When librarians, lifeguards, teachers, transit workers, road repair crews and health care workers disappear, or airport and school construction is halted, the economy trembles.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MoveOn.org is offering a free Obama ’08 bumper sticker to anyone who orders one here:

https://pol.moveon.org/obamast…

For now, I am keeping my Edwards bumper sticker on the car, along with my Buy Fresh, Local and Organic sticker. My husband’s car still has the Denise O’Brien for Secretary of Agriculture sticker!

A month or two ago I saw a pickup truck that had an Edwards sticker paired with one I’d never seen before: “Thou Shalt Not Scab.”

If Jerry Sullivan’s campaign produces bumper stickers, I’ll pick up one of those this year too.

What stickers do you have on your vehicle? Are you one of those people who keeps driving around promoting candidates long after they’ve lost an election, or do you get those stickers off your car ASAP?

What are the best and worst bumper stickers you’ve seen lately?

A few years ago I stopped at a light behind a car with a sticker that said something like, “Raised Republican–I can help myself, thank you!” The funny thing was, the same car had a handicapped emblem hanging from the rear-view mirror. I felt like stopping the driver to say he should thank Tom Harkin for the fact that he can find a convenient place to park.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Veepness stakes: Please no Webb, DINOs

Veepness stakes: Securing the Clinton bloc

Do click over. These are worth your time.

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

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

Anyone out there watch the speech?

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

http://www.dailykos.com/story/…

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

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

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

Its also worth keeping in mind (4.00 / 12)

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

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

You did it once.

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

Now we’re asking you to do it again.

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

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

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

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

Become a fundraiser and create a fundraising page.

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

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

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

From all of us here at ActBlue, thanks.

Erin Hill

Political Director

ActBlue

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Earlier today, TheRealWorld posted this in a comment:

The obama people and the IDP are dreading the fact that fallon might win this because of the massive amounts of problems that would cause to have a congressional candidate that cannot buy into the coordinated campaign and would cause the RNCCC to just spend money widely here. I know the obama people arent breaking for him in the numbers he needs because the obama people have been keeping there people in check and the boswell people have gone after them hard. they may be pissed about the clinton thing but since that is over now hopefully they wont hold it against him. Especially since they need the boswell cross over of veterans and republicans for obama to win this district and state in the general

Obama supporters, were you hearing from Obama precinct captains, delegates, or volunteers that Fallon winning the primary would make it harder for Obama to carry Iowa?

Was there any organized effort by people affiliated with the Obama campaign to steer rank and file supporters toward Boswell for this reason?

Were you hearing this argument from Boswell field organizers or volunteers?

An Obama precinct captain I met recently told me that many of the Obama delegates at the third distict convention were supporting Boswell because he is “good enough.” She did not mention the points raised by TheRealWorld, though.

The big news of the day is that Barack Obama has picked up enough superdelegates, along with delegates pledged to John Edwards, to clinch the presidential nomination.

I’ve been trying to tell people at Daily Kos for months that the superdelegates would bring down the curtain after all the states had voted.

I think the extended primary season was on balance excellent for the Democratic Party, and I couldn’t disagree more with those who have been badgering Hillary Clinton to drop out for the past two or three months.

Early returns from South Dakota indicate that Hillary will win that primary, by the way.

Polls close soon in Iowa, and I will update this diary when I have some results to report.

UPDATE: With 46 percent of precincts reporting Boswell leads Fallon 56 percent to 44 percent. Not clear whether absentee ballots have already been counted. I would expect Boswell to have an edge there. Also not clear whether the big Des Moines precincts have reported.

UPDATE 2: Not looking good for Fallon–Boswell leads 57-43 with 60 percent of precincts reporting.

The GOP Senate candidates are bunched closely together with 25 percent of precincts reporting.

Still only 4 percent of precincts reporting in IA-04. Greenwald leads, but it’s way too early.

Peter Teahen is ahead in the GOP primary in IA-02 wih 30 percent of precincts reporting.

UPDATE 3: The Des Moines Register has called the IA-03 primary for Boswell. He leads 60-40 with 90 percent of precincts reporting.

Becky Greenwald has a huge lead in IA-04, with 52.6 percent of the vote after 59 percent of precincts reported. Kurt Meyer is in second place with 26.6 percent; William Meyers has 12.1 percent, and Kevin Miskell has 8.7 percent.

Mariannette Miller-Meeks has a small lead over Peter Teahen, 44.3 percent to 42.3 percent with 82 percent of precincts reporting.

The GOP Senate race is very close with 79 percent of precincts reporting: Christopher Reed has 35.4 percent, George Eichhorn has 34.9 percent.

UPDATE 4: There may need to be a recount in IA-02. With 98 percent of precincts reporting, Miller-Meeks leads Teahen by fewer than 100 votes, 43.5 percent to 43.0 percent.

The GOP Senate primary is also a squeaker, with fewer than 200 votes separating reed and Eichhorn.

Boswell leads Fallon 61-29 with 98 percent reporting.

Greenwald leads Meyer 51-27 with 84 percent reporting.

All the Democratic House incumbents who had primary challengers held on to their seats.

Jerry Sullivan won the primary in House district 59 with 78 percent of the vote despite the robocalls against him that I wrote about last night.

FINAL UPDATE: It looks like Obama won the Montana primary and Clinton won the South Dakota primary.

I didn’t see Obama’s speech to a huge crowd in the Twin Cities, but I am amused that John McCain stupidly scheduled a speech for this evening. His speech got cut off so the tv networks could devote coverage to the big story (Obama winning the nomination) and Obama’s big speech (which was apparently great).

In IA-03, Boswell beat Fallon by 61-39 percent with all the precincts in. That is comparable to Representative Jane Harman’s victory over Marcy Winograd in a California Congressional district two years ago. Harman’s voting record reportedly improved after that primary. Let’s hope we can expect the same from Boswell.

Final results from the IA-04 primary: Greenwald 50.7 percent, Meyer 27.6 percent, Meyers 13.2 percent, Miskell 8.4 percent.

Christopher Reed won the GOP Senate primary by about 400 votes out of about 70,000 votes cast. He had 35.3 percent of the vote, George Eichhorn had 34.7 percent, and Steve Rathje had 29.9 percent.

IA-02 race called for Miller-Meeks. She won by a margin of 109 votes out of nearly 17,000 votes cast.

Nothing on the Des Moines Register’s site about recounts in the GOP Senate primary or Congressional primary in IA-02.

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

http://www.demochoice.org/dcba…

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

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I…

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

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

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

Please go back and persuade John Edwards to hire Sarah Susanka (the Not So Big House woman) to design his Chapel Hill home.

Failing that, please go back and convince Barack Obama to resign from Trinity United Church of Christ before running for president, instead of right before the general election campaign.

Seriously, if Obama was going to leave his church to limit the potential damage to his political ambitions, he should have done it a long time ago. Doing it now, after everyone has seen Reverend Wright’s rants on television, just looks like pandering.

I thought as a nice break from all the primary squabbling, I thought I might spark some discussion about something else: the race to replace Obama. There was a very neat discussion about this on the National Journal's wonderful HotlineTV v-blog the other day, and so I thought I'd share it with everyone.

The problem: Should Obama win the presidency, he'll need someone to fill his seat in the senate. According to this article in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, it's entirely up to Illinois Governor Blagojevich who he appoints to pick. He doesn't have to specifically pick a Democrat (although he would be certifiably insane not to), or have his pick vetted by anyone. Like much of Illinois politics, anything goes.

The Serious Seven Contenders: 

1. Gov. Rod Blagojevich
    That's right. He can appoint himself. And, there is reason to suggest he just might. The only catch is, he is intensly unpopular…especially in downstate Illinois. Were he to appoint himself, it puts the seat in serious jeopardy in 2010. 

2.  Ill. Atty. Gen. Lisa Madigan
    At 41, Ms. Madigan reigns supreme as the post-Obama rising star of the Illinois Democrat Party. Narrowly elected in 2002 with just a hair over 50% of the vote, her stances against some of Gov. Unpronounceable's policies have made her incredibly popular–as well as the Gov's chief rival. (For proof, see her 2006 reelection with 72% of the vote.) As rumor has it, the Gov. might appoint her for no other reason than to get her out of his well-coifed hair. 

3.  Sen. Rahm Emanuel
    A man with serious skills, Sen. Emanuel is nothing if not politically savvy. He's a powerhouse in the House and connected out the wazoo; with those connections, could become a more influential senator than even his predecessor.  And if the decision comes down to who's worked the hardest, it's a lock for Sen. Emanuel.

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

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

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

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

The Deep Logic of Edwards for VP–Part 1

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

The Deep Logic of Edwards for VP–Part 2

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

The Deep Logic of Edwards for VP–Part 3

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

Reflecting on Ben Smith’s post at Politico about early Obama supporters, it occurred to me that he forgot John and Jackie Norris, and I should write something about that.

Bleeding Heartland user RF was on the same wavelength. After reading my post last night, he put up this comment:

On the list of prominent early Obama supporters, I think John Norris should be there instead of Gordon.  Like you pointed out, Gordon was not onboard that early.  I saw Norris at various Obama meetings and at his IA headquarters very early.  With his background, I also suspect his input had more to do with Obama’s success than anything Gordon did.

John Norris ran John Kerry’s Iowa operation during the last presidential campaign. As a precinct captain for Kerry, I can confirm that Norris did a lot to hold that campaign together during several months of one discouraging poll after another. He made sure his field organizers kept doing their jobs and lining up precinct captains, and they made sure precinct captains didn’t panic and kept lining up supporters.

John Norris initially backed Tom Vilsack for president. He had worked on Governor Vilsack’s staff and been appointed by Vilsack to serve on the Iowa Utilities Board.

The day Vilsack ended his presidential campaign, Jerome Armstrong observed, “Whoever lands John Norris will be the winner from Vilsack dropping out.”

Norris did not take an official position with the Obama campaign, but his wife Jackie Norris joined the Obama staff in Iowa very soon after Vilsack left the race.

As RF noted, John Norris’s input must have been quite helpful to Obama’s team as they set up their campaign operation in Iowa.

In addition, I am certain that having the Norrises on board helped Obama win over many Iowans who had caucused for Kerry in 2004.

On at least one occasion, I remember a field organizer for Obama telling me that John Norris was supporting Obama after she learned that I had been a precinct captain for Kerry.

I remember talking with an active Democratic volunteer from a neighboring precinct sometime last summer. She also had supported Kerry in 2004 and was undecided at the time we talked. She mentioned that it made a big impression on her that Jackie Norris quit her job to go work for Obama.

I haven’t seen that woman in a while and don’t know which candidate she eventually picked. But I wouldn’t be surprised if Obama field organizers were advised to bring up the Norrises whenever they encountered former Kerry supporters.

Ben Smith mentioned that the people who backed Obama early in the campaign “could be expected to have real access, and in some cases major jobs, in an Obama White House.”

Whether or not Obama chooses John or Jackie Norris for a job in his administration, Obama’s support would be a huge asset to John Norris if he runs for any political office. Norris ran for Congress against Tom Latham in 2002, and I expect he will seek some elective state or federal office in the future.  

With potential backing from Obama, Vilsack (who I doubt would hold a grudge over Norris not supporting Hillary Clinton) and labor unions who appreciated his deciding vote in favor of a new coal-fired power plant near Marshalltown, Norris would have a leg up on rivals in a Democratic primary.

The environmental community would probably not support Norris in a primary, but I’m sorry to say that I am not aware of any Iowa Democrat whose political career suffered from not protecting the environment enough.  

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

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

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

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

Q: Why?

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

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

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

Q: What’s your speculation?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Senator Richard Durbin

Former Majority Leader Tom Daschle

Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller

Oprah Winfrey

Iowa Treasurer Mike Fitzgerald

Former Iowa Democratic Party Chairman Gordon Fischer

Ted Sorensen

Virginia Governor Tim Kaine

Alabama Rep. Artur Davis

New Hampshire Rep. Paul Hodes

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

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

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

But I digress.

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

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

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

[…]

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

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

[…]

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

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

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

1. Oprah

2. will.i.am

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

4. Ben Affleck

5. George Clooney

6. Scarlett Johansson

7. Samuel L. Jackson

8. Chris Rock

9. Robert De Niro

10. Jennifer Aniston

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

HuffPo’s list of top ten Clinton supporters:

1. Ellen DeGeneres

2. Elton John

3. Ted Danson and Mary Steenburgen

4. Jack Nicholson

5. Natalie Portman

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

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

8. Magic Johnson

9. Barbra Streisand

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Markos has a simpler explanation:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What did I miss?

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

I’m not sure I’ll be able to log on later to update this diary with the results, but please use this thread to discuss how things went tonight.

There will be frequent updates at:

http://www.dailykos.com

http://www.mydd.com

What will tomorrow’s headlines be?

Tomorrow’s primary day in Kentucky and Oregon.

Chris Bowers has the latest polling averages for both states.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.dailykos.com/storyo…

Click the link to read what Poblano and others project.

Please post a comment if you know of any noteworthy event I’ve left out.

Democrats, please let me know about your upcoming meet-and-greets, fundraisers, town hall meetings or candidate forums by e-mailing desmoinesdem AT yahoo.com.

Monday, May 19:

Ed Fallon will appear on Iowa Public Radio (WOI 640 AM) between 10:00 – 11:00 am. He will be interviewed by Jeneane Beck and will take questions from callers.

Fallon will hold an event at Gateway West Park, 14th and Locust in downtown Des Moines at 3:00 PM. The event will kick off Fallon’s blitz of 12 counties the next day for his ‘New Energy for Iowa Tour.’ At the event, and during the tour, Fallon will announce a major new Congressional proposal he plans to champion if elected to Congress that will greatly benefit both Iowa’s environment and rural economy.

The Iowa Global Warming Campaign, Sierra Club and I-Renew are hosting a free film screening of “Global Warming: the Signs and the Science,” a film that uses expert dialogues on global warming to talk about how we can reverse its course. After the film, attendees will have the opportunity to ask questions and participate in a discussion about the film and related issues. Refreshments provided. The “Every Day is Earth Day” event will take place from 6:30 – 8:30 p.m. at the Dubuque Public Library, 360 W. 11th St. @ Locust St. Dubuque.

Tuesday, May 20:

Barack and Michelle Obama are holding a rally at E. 6th Street and E. Locust Street in Des Moines, IA (on the west side of the capitol). Doors open at 7:30 pm. **Public Entrance at E. 6th Street and Grand Avenue** The event is free and open to the public. Tickets are not required but an RSVP is strongly encouraged. To RSVP please visit http://www.barackobama.com/.

Also on May 20, Ed Fallon is doing events in all 12 counties of Iowa’s third Congressional district:

7 am to 7:25 am

Knoxville Courthouse/Bandstand

214 E. Main St., Knoxville

8:00 am to 8:25 am

Chariton Courthouse Lawn (NE Corner)

916 Braden St., Chariton

9:00 am to 9:25 am

Albia Courthouse/Bandstand

10 Benton Ave. E., Albia

10:00 am to 10:25 am

Oskaloosa Town-square Bandstand

106 S. 1st St., Oskaloosa

11:00 am to 11:25 am

Sigourney Courthouse/Bandstand

101 S. Main St., Sigourney

12:15 pm to 12:40 pm

Marengo City Hall/Gazebo

152 E. Main St., Marengo

1:15 pm to 1:40 pm

Vinton Courthouse Lawn

111 E. 4th St., Vinton

2:45 pm to 3:10 pm

Grundy Center Courthouse/Bandstand

706 G. Ave., Grundy Center

4:00 pm to 4:25 pm

Toledo Courthouse/Bandstand

100 W. High St., Toledo

5:00 pm to 5:25 pm

Grinnell

Saint’s Rest Café

919 Broad St., Grinnell

6:00 pm to 6:20 pm

Newton

Uncle Nancy’s Coffee

114 N. 2nd Ave W., Newton

For his final event of the day, Ed will attend the Obama rally in Des Moines.

Windsor Heights Mayor Jerry Sullivan, Democratic candidate for House district 59, is having a meet the candidate event hosted by Clive Mayor Les Aasheim from 5 pm to 7 pm at the Clive Aquatic Center, 1801 NW 114th St in Clive.

One Iowa is holding a volunteer workshop at 6 pm. This is one of seven volunteer workshops to be held over the next month. These workshops will be a chance for you to sign up for shifts at Pride this June!  There will be a quick overview and training session to let you know about what the different volunteer needs and roles will be, where to check in and check out during Pride, and how this process will work.  Immediately following will be a chance for you to ask any questions you may have and to sign up for volunteer shifts.

To sign up for the May 20 volunteer workshop, RSVP here: http://eqfed.org/oneiowa/event…

Wednesday, May 21:

The spring 2008 Polk County Water Quality Snapshot is the fifth year of sampling water quality in rivers and streams in Polk County. Organized by the Iowa Environmental Council and Des Moines Water Works, the snapshot is conducted twice a year in the spring and fall. This year over 30 volunteers will help test over 70 sites on rivers, streams and lakes throughout the county. On Wednesday, May 21, from 8:30-9:30 a.m., volunteers will gather at the Izaak Walton League, at 4343 George Flagg Parkway, for a quick refresher course on water quality testing. At 9:30 groups of volunteers will leave with testing equipment, maps and directions to testing sites. Testing will be completed by 2 p.m. Wednesday.

John Scarpino, Candidate for Polk County Supervisor, District 2, is holding a campaign kickoff reception from 6 pm to 8 pm at Traditions Restaurant, 1509 S Ankeny Blvd in Ankeny. RSVP to Rick Singleton at 515-967-4245 or email Scarpino4Super@aol.com

Jerry Sullivan is holding a special event from 6 pm to 8 pm at the Walnut Creek Inn, 1258 8th St in West Des Moines. Please RSVP to Mike McCall at mmcall AT iowademocrats.org. Suggested donation $25 (host and sponsor levels higher).

Thursday, May 22:

One Iowa is holding another volunteer workshop (see explanation above) at 6 pm. To RSVP for this one, click here: http://eqfed.org/oneiowa/event…

Friday, May 23:

Free concert of Belin Quartet (classical string ensemble) beginning shortly after noon in Nollen Plaza, 3rd and Locust, downtown Des Moines.

Saturday, May 24:

This is the deadline to register to vote if you want to vote by mail in the June 3 primary. (If you are voting in person, you can register on the same day as the primary, but you will need to bring ID and proof of your address, such as a utility bill.)

Whiterock Conservancy and the Iowa Natural History Association are holding a weekend “BioBlitz”:

Whiterock BioBlitz 2008

1:00pm May 24-1:00pm May 25

Please join Whiterock Conservancy and Iowa Natural History Association for the Whiterock BioBlitz, a full day of exploration and learning!

A Biodiversity Blitz, or “Bio-Blitz” consists of a rapid assessment of what lives in a specific area at a given point in time. During the 24-hour BioBlitz at Whiterock Conservancy, teams led by biologists and staffed by novices and enthusiasts will explore the huge 4,300-acre Whiterock Conservancy-managed landscape and document every single species they find. BioBlitz participants will take part in the forays, using the “more eyes will find more species” approach. At the end of the 24-hour period, a comprehensive inventory of Whiterock’s plants, birds, insects, fungi, fishes, lichens, bryophytes, mammals, snails, amphibians, and reptiles will be closer to complete. The Whiterock BioBlitz is open to all members of the public to come explore Iowa’s largest land gift and one of Iowa’s newest and most unexplored treasures. Families with children are welcome as long as kids are willing to walk and parents can concurrently keep a skilled eye on both offspring and butterflies, reptiles, mollusks, etc.

CRITICAL INFO

Registration: Form attached-please fill out and return to Whiterock Conservancy

Headquarters: Whiterock Conservancy Campground

Time Frame: 1:00 pm. May 24 – 1:00 pm May 25

Accommodations: FREE TENT CAMPING (Bring camping gear)

Meals: FREE FOOD (Bring reusable silverware, plates, and cups)

What to Bring: Sturdy shoes and weather appropriate clothes, tent camping gear, reusable water bottles, binoculars, camera, flashlight.

Directions: From Coon Rapids, drive 2.2 miles east on Highway 141. Turn south onto Fig Avenue and drive 2.3 miles. The campground is located on the left before you cross over the Middle Raccoon River.

Questions: Please don’t hesitate to email or call Elizabeth Hill with questions regarding the Whiterock BioBlitz.