As I've written a couple of posts below, I don't expect Rudy Giuliani to be the GOP nominee. However, I've noticed lately that several Democrats in the race have been going out of their way to take on Rudy.

Joe Biden scored at last week's debate with his joke that every sentence uttered by Rudy has a noun, a verb and 9/11, and his comment that Rudy is the most unqualified person to run for president since George W. Bush. His campaign has been milking these moments in fund-raising e-mails featuring highlights from the debate and outrageous comments made by Rudy. For instance:

As I wrote earlier, we expected another attack from Giuliani's campaign on Friday and they didn't disappoint. On a morning radio show, Rudy Giuliani made the unbelievable claim that Joe Biden has no foreign policy experience.

 

 

Make a contribution to help Joe keep Rudy on the run.

 

Host: You would say Senator Biden doesn't have foreign policy experience?

 

Giuliani: Has he ever been in the State Department? Has he ever been an executive? It's one thing…it's one thing to speak about what you want or even pass laws about it. It's another thing to actually do it. Foreign policy experience to me means being an ambassador, being in the state department. Being a law endorsement official. Dealing with foreign countries.

By now, we've come to expect this kind of blatant nonsense from Giuliani. But even we couldn't believe that just a few hours later, when asked about his comments, he would just outright deny saying it.

 

Giuliani: I didn't, I didn't mention foreign policy. I said Joe Biden fit into the category of Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Edwards. And they were all questioned about this at the debate, and he wasn't. Here's, here's here's the situation. They have–in a very strange way–they have never run a city, never run a state, never run a business. They've never run anything.

 

The radio station put out a press release of his first statement. There were video cameras present when he made the second statement. Yet that didn't keep him from just outright denying what he said. CNN captured the flip-flop on “The Situation Room” — you can watch the video here.

Barack Obama has also been mixing it up with Rudy, after Giuliani called Obama's strategy toward Iran naive and irresponsible. Over at Daily Kos, Adam B wrote a diary on the hard-hitting response from a spokesman for the Obama campaign:

http://www.dailykos….

While Rudy Giuliani may embrace Hillary Clinton's policy of not talking and saber rattling towards Iran, Barack Obama knows that policy is not working.  It's time for tough and direct diplomacy with Iran, not lectures from a Mayor who skipped out on the Iraq Study Group to give paid speeches, and who was naive and irresponsible enough to recommend someone with ties to convicted felons for Secretary of Homeland Security.

Kudos to the Obama campaign for calling attention to Rudy's failure to attend meetings of the Iraq Study Group. That issue alone should be enough to sink Giuliani's campaign.

Finally, I can't resist posting this statement Edwards campaign manager David Bonior made a few months back. It calls attention to Rudy's grotesque use of 9/11 imagery to promote himself, even though his administration could have done a lot more to prepare New York City's first responders for a possible attack:

http://www.johnedwar…

John Edwards for President National Campaign Manager Congressman David Bonior released the following statement in response to former Mayor Rudy Giuliani's comments that he was at ground zero in New York City “as often, if not more” than rescue workers. 

 

“Evidently, Rudy Giuliani has taken a break from reality. It is outrageous for Giuliani to suggest, in any way, shape or form, that he did more at ground zero or spent more time there than the brave first responders who worked tirelessly around the clock for many months during the rescue and recovery operation. It seems that Giuliani is determined to take every opportunity to exploit the memory of 9/11 for political gain, rather than honor the incredible sacrifices of our first responders. Enough is enough.

 

“Mayor Giuliani should start answering the serious questions of why firefighters and other first responders didn't have proper equipment and support. The 9/11 Commission and National Institute of Standards & Technology reports have documented the failures of the broken radio communications system, a splintered chain of command and an unprepared Office of Emergency Management under his watch as mayor. These are the questions he needs to answer.”

Is anyone seriously going to tell me that Rudy will be the Republican presidential nominee? This guy has way too much baggage.

There's been quite a bit of press this week about attacking other candidates and negative campaigning, including a number of comments on my statements at the debate calling on the other candidates to lay off the personal attacks on Senator Clinton.

But I was surprised that what many people “took away” from my statements was that I must support Senator Clinton's positions because I thought some of the attacks were out of line.

So, let me set the record straight.

I deeply disagree with Senator Clinton on many issues, just as I do with the other candidates.  For starters, Senator Clinton thinks we can fix No Child Left Behind; I believe we need to scrap it.  I believe we must create a New Energy Revolution whereas Senator Clinton's positions are simply not bold enough on reducing greenhouse gas emissions and moving to alternative energy sources.

Senator Clinton seems to believe there are nations out there too “bad” for us to talk to — I disagree and believe we should talk to both our enemies and our friends.

Senator Clinton voted for the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment that authorized aggressive action against factions in Iran.  I think that is a huge mistake and find it shocking that she hasn't yet learned the most important lesson any American could learn about George Bush: he can't be trusted.  This vote may end up being a vote for a war in Iran. 

Most importantly, I disagree with Senator Clinton's belief that we cannot end the war now and get our troops out.  I do not understand why she, and others who claim to be against the war, continue to vote for additional funding so the war can continue and still don't stand up to Bush on getting our troops out so we can begin reconciliation.  I don't believe we are helpless against Bush and the Republicans.  I believe Congress was elected to end this war, that they have the power to act, and yet don't.

I profoundly disagree with Senator Clinton that it is unreasonable to commit to getting troops out of Iraq by 2013.

But these are disagreements on policy – not on personality.  Personal attacks are an easy way out when candidates aren't able to make real contrasts with opponents on real policy positions.

Frankly, I don't need to resort to personal attacks because I have so many disagreements with the other candidates – including Hillary Clinton — on the issues.

Don't get me wrong – I believe in highlighting differences when I see them, and exposing misinformation when I hear it, and I've never been one to shy away from a fight.  But I also believe to my core that we need to bring this country together, not split ourselves even further apart.  And before we all start to accept ubiquitous personal attacks, even against fellow Democrats, as simply the state of modern politics, we should strongly consider where attacks like these are coming from.

None of the attacks I've heard lately deal with the issue at the heart of this campaign, and the issue that will win or lose us the White House: ending the war in Iraq.  When closely examined, Senator Obama's position is not much different from Senator Clinton's on key points.  They may disagree on exactly how many troops to leave behind, and the mission, but they both would leave troops in Iraq for years after taking office.  And Senator Edwards talks about removing combat troops but what about the tens of thousands non-combat troops?

And who can forget that at the MSNBC Dartmouth Debate each and every one of them refused to commit to getting the troops out of Iraq by 2013 – SIX YEARS FROM NOW.

That position is just unacceptable.

We need to get our troops out now.  We need to stop the war with Iran before it starts.  And we need to have a debate where we focus on the real issues, and the real differences between candidates on important policy positions — not just on who is attacking whom for what.

If we as a party don't focus on the issues that really matter, and instead waste our time calling each other names, we are opening ourselves up to real Republican attacks next fall.  We should keep talking contrasts on issues and differences on world view, but let's save labels like “dishonest” for those who really deserve them.

You can find out more about where I stand on Iraq at www.GetOurTroopsOut.com and at www.richardsonforpresident.com.

K Street and Corporate lobbyists are turning up the heat on Congressional leaders to pass the Peru Free Trade Agreement, yet another trade policy that benefits only the bottom line of big corporations, at the expense of American workers.  Some Corporate Republicans and Corporate Democrats are sucumbing to the pressure of supporting the Peru Free Trade Agreement before the ink is even dry on the checks.

Water-boarding is term that describes strapping an individual to a board, with a towel pulled tightly across his face, and pouring water on him or her to cut off air and simulate drowning.  

When asked directly last week whether he thought waterboarding is constitutional, Attorney General nominee Michael Mukasey was evasive.  As noted by NPR, Mukasey “danced around the issue of whether waterboarding actually is torture and stopped short of saying that it is.” “If it amounts to torture,” Mukasey said carefully, “then it is not constitutional.”

As stated by Bill Richardson,

Waterboarding is torture, and anyone who is unwilling to identify it as such is not qualified to be the chief legal officer of the United States of America. If I were in the U.S. Senate, I would vote against Mukasey unless he denounces such specific forms of torture.

What about the Democrats in the U.S. Senate and other Democratic Presidential candidates?  Will they oppose Mukasey unless he denounces the use of torture by our government?

Barack Obama's campaign opened two more field offices, in Perry and Fairfield:

http://blogs.dmregis…

Here's a list of the cities and towns containing field offices for Obama:

Fairfield, Perry, Maquoketa, Knoxville, Independence, Oelwein, Decorah, Charles City, Carroll, Spencer, Clinton, Marshalltown, Fort Madison, Waverly, Algona, Elkader, Indianola, Newton, Waterloo, Ames, Sioux City, Cedar Falls, Ottumwa, Davenport, Burlington, Fort Dodge, Iowa City, Mason City, Council Bluffs, Dubuque, Cedar Rapids, Muscatine, Des Moines.

Wow.

I am a little surprised that Fairfield didn't have an office before now. I would have thought that was fertile territory for Obama. Then again, Jefferson County will only assign 15 out of the 2,500 state delegates.

Like I've been saying, Obama will have a huge army of foot soldiers in this state. This is anybody's game. 

Iraq is a disaster. We are now approaching http://icasualties.org/oif/” target=”_blank”>4,000 U.S. soldiers dead and updates of the Lancet study estimate that over a million Iraqis have died! This astounding figure was recently corrorborated in a http://www.opinion.co.uk/Newsroom_detail s.aspx?NewsId=78″ target=”_blank”>British study this month. Security only declines day by day and dependable power, clean water and employment is unavailable. The U.S. spends about http://www.democrats.org/a/2005/10/the_real_cost_o.php”>$200 million each day 70% of Americans want it to end.

Five years ago was critical week in the decision by our nation to go to war with Iraq.  While the Senate was debating the war, Edwards gave a well-publicized speech in Washington, D.C. on October  7, 2002, supporting the Bush Administration's rationale for invading Iraq.  

At the time, Edwards was busy planning his run for President and seeking to position himself as a Southern war hawk.  He failed to read key intelligence reports available only to members of the Senate that cast doubt the Bush Administration's claims that Saddam possessed WMD and which influenced those that read them to vote against the war.  

Edwards had made up his mind that the U.S. should invade Iraq.  Edwards' judgment on Iraq was flawed in 2002 and it remains flawed today.  He refuses to commit to the withdrawal of ALL U.S. forces from Iraq by 2010 or even 2013.

Barack Obama's new tv ad features Retired Air Force General Merrill McPeak. It's a good ad. I couldn't figure out how to embed the video, but here is a link to it:

http://link.brightco…

I do have to wonder, though, how many undecideds are going to swing to Obama after watching this ad. It's not news to anyone that Obama opposed the war in Iraq before it began. If someone already knew this and isn't supporting Obama now, why would hearing McPeak talk about Obama's superior judgment make a difference?

I think Obama needs to make the case for why he is the best candidate to get us out of Iraq, and that's going to be hard for him to do, since his voting record on Iraq in the Senate is the same as Clinton's, and Richardson, Dodd and Biden are all running as more experienced candidates who have the “right” plan for ending the war.

I hate to link to The New Republic, but Michael Crowley does make an interesting point about the ad's use of a black and white photo of Obama in front of the White House–presumably designed to make him look presidential:

http://www.tnr.com/b…

Bill Richardson gave an extremely thoughtful speech yesterday at Georgetown University on the responsible path out of Iraq. Richardson also outlined a new foreign policy for the U.S., discussed our relations with Iran and explained need to restructure our armed forces.  

On Iraq, Richardson stated, “If you haven't seen enough to know that we need to get all the troops out then you aren't watching the same war that I and the rest of America are seeing. I don't think just changing the mission is enough — we need to end the war.”

Everyone should watch Richardson's speech and hear the compelling case he makes for ALL U.S. troops to leave Iraq now.  The video clip follows.

According to the Tampa Tribune:

Obama also appeared to violate a pledge he and the other leading candidates took not to campaign in Florida before the primary.

How?

After the fundraiser at Scarritt’s Hyde Park home, Obama crossed the street to take half a dozen questions from reporters waiting there.

The pledge covers anything referred to in Democratic National Committee rules as “campaigning,” and those rules include “holding news conferences.”

Obama seemed unaware of that. Asked whether he was violating the pledge, he said, “I was just doing you guys a favor. … If that’s the case, then we won’t do it again.”

That was less than a day after the pledge took effect Saturday, and Obama is the first Democratic presidential candidate to visit Florida since then.

Last night at the Democratic debate in Davenport, Iowa, the most significant exchange to date in the debates occurred.  Judy Woodruff asked the candidates how many U.S. troops would remain in Iraq one year after taking office if elected.

Biden said it depends on how Bush leaves Iraq.  Edwards agreed with Biden, claiming “it’s impossible to say.”  Clinton echoed Biden’s view, vaguely offering “a reasonable and prudent plan” to get our troops out.  Dodd objected to speaking about 2010 and said Congress should not wait that long to act.

Only Richardson provided a direct and unambiguous answer:  

Zero troops! . . .  Without getting our troops out you can not have a political settlement. . . . I would take all of our troops out.  We need to end this war now.

Back in June, I urged Barack Obama to fire the scheduler who put him at a west-coast fundraiser instead of at the Iowa Democratic Party's Hall of Fame dinner in Cedar Rapids. It seemed crazy to me for Obama to pass up a chance to address 1,000 Democratic activists in Iowa, especially since he wasn't hurting in the fundraising department. 

I've long questioned the wisdom of David Axelrod's strategy to make the Obama campaign about Obama's inspiring personal story and his quest for consensus and post-partisanship.

Now I read in the Des Moines Register on Friday that Barack Obama will skip the September 20 American Association for Retired Persons forum in Davenport.

John Edwards, Hillary Clinton and Bill Richardson will be there. But Obama will miss the chance to address more than 2,000 Iowa seniors, as well as the national public television audience who will watch the event.

Last week the Obama campaign announced plans to skip many of the remaining forums held by interest groups, and his national campaign manager explained the decision to the Register:

The number of events threatened to take Obama off his own game plan, his national campaign manager David Plouffe said.

“Otherwise, our schedule would be dictated by dozens and dozens of forums and debates, and we think the most important part of this process is individual interaction with voters,” Plouffe said. “We benefit greatly when we're out there meeting with voters at our own events.”

A lot of pundits and bloggers applauded Obama's decision, saying there are too many debates and forums. I see their point, but on the other hand, interest group forums raise questions that might not come up often on the campaign trail. I like the idea of the candidates being forced to address these issues.

Plus, I think it's risky to turn down an invitation when your rivals will all be there. 

But even if I agreed with Obama's general strategy to attend fewer of these forums, the last one I'd skip is the AARP forum in Iowa.

Think about it: Obama does well with the under-30 crowd, but many (most?) Iowa precincts have a very small proportion of voters under 30. The majority of caucus-goers are likely to be over 50. The Register notes:

That group also has carried disproportionate clout in recent caucuses, according to Iowa Democratic Party statistics.

In 2004, 64 percent of the people who participated in the Democratic presidential caucuses were 50 or older. In 2000, the figure was 63 percent.

If Obama is going to do well in Iowa, he'll have to improve his numbers with the over-50 set.

Iowa State University political science professor Dianne Bystrom said she would have thought Obama would have made an exception for the AARP forum.

“He may not think that's his political base,” said Bystrom, whose expertise includes debate strategy. “But it's the older voters that go to the caucuses, and I think he's really passing up an opportunity to speak to those voters.”

Obama has a great Iowa staff led by John Norris, who managed John Kerry's campaign here in 2003 and 2004 Paul Tewes. But his national campaign handlers need to have their heads examined.

You may wonder why I care, since I am supporting Edwards for president. But I don't want Obama to do poorly in Iowa. I want him to finish ahead of Clinton.

To do that, he'll need to do better with older voters.  I hope he'll turn up in Davenport on September 20 after all.

I attended the Polk County Democrats' women's event tonight, featuring Michelle Obama. Unfortunately, I had to leave before she finished speaking so that my toddler would not disrupt the proceedings.

But wow, she did a great job. I don't have a transcript or notes. The gist of her speech was first, to talk about the tough balancing act women have, and put this in the context of problems we need to solve in this country. Then, she talked about how these issues affecting women motivated her and Barack Obama to pursue a political career instead of taking an easier path (like teaching).

She said she knew what we were all thinking–why should we support Obama when there is a talented woman candidate in the race? (Well, I wasn't thinking that, but there were plenty of Hillary supporters in the crowd.) She hit repeatedly on the “change” theme; I can't remember the exact words, but the main point was that we need to totally change the direction in Washington, not just replace this administration.

I think this is good rhetoric for Obama to use against Hillary; electing her would bring just superficial change–we need to turn the page.

I noticed that Edwards has started to hit on this theme as well. Today he condemned the merger of Rupert Murdoch's News Corp and the Wall Street Journal. He also challenged Democratic presidential candidates not to take money from News Corp execs and to refund any contribution they've already received from them. 

Obviously, this refers to Hillary, the Democrat Rupert Murdoch's minions desperately want us to nominate. She's taken in more than $20,000 from News Corp execs.

Links are here:

http://www.mydd.com/…

http://www.johnedwards.com/news/press-releases/20070802-media-consolidation

The sad truth is that even if Hillary were electable, another Clinton administration would give too much influence to the Washington and corporate insiders who have too much influence today.

Democratic voters are hungry for change, and Hillary will not deliver the bold change we need. We'll be hearing much more on this theme from Obama and Edwards in the coming months.

Not only is it good political rhetoric, it has the advantage of being true. 

Over at Iowa Independent Dien Judge reports that “We haven't seen the end of the Clinton-Obama diplomacy feud.”

The chairman of the Democratic Party in Monroe County (southeast Iowa) got a phone call from PSA Interviewing, which conducted a message-testing poll for Clinton in Iowa earlier this year.

Most of the poll questions were about Hillary, and they concerned both policy matters and electability. The survey specifically asked about the CNN/You Tube debate question about whether the president should meet with foreign dictators, and under what conditions.

There's been a lot of debate in the blogosphere over who was helped by this dispute. If Clinton tries to keep this story alive in her speeches and/or campaign ads, it's a safe bet that her internal Iowa polling showed it was a winner for her. If she doesn't bring it up much in the future, we can assume that the polling showed most Iowans agreed with Obama.

On Iowa’s airwaves you’ll start seeing a new TV ad titled “Take It Back” touting reform efforts his campaign has taken to get rid of the influence of Washington lobbyists and PACs by not accepting donations from them to his campaign as well as highlight his work in the Senate on ethics reform efforts.  For some reason, I can’t find a version of the ad that I can embed here on Bleeding Heartland, but you can view the ad by clicking here.

It is a good ad that follows on the same theme/guidelines established in his first two biographical ads that went up on the air in Iowa, as in they help to keep telling the “Barack Obama story.”

What interests me about this ad is the highlighting of ethics and campaign finance issues as the primary focus in what is Obama’s first true issue ad in Iowa.  Will the issues really resonate with Iowans at this point?  I’m not sure.

Ethics and government reform were major Democratic campaign platforms in 2006 and were even considered to be one of the deciding issues in 2006 (right behind the catch-all issue of Iraq).  But now with House passing really comprehensive lobbying reform legislation (that will likely be passed in the Senate as is and sent to the President’s desk) it seems like Democrats are already taking big efforts to fully push through reform.

Maybe I’m just naive or way to focused on other issues like Iraq but to me the clean campaign Obama is running just makes logical sense and should be what all the campaigns are doing, and then other issues should become the real focus.

Either way, it is just a TV ad, and a good one.

Over at MyDD, Todd Beeton put up a thread linking to a Newsweek story about the brand messaging of major presidential candidates, based on their bumper stickers.

Click the link to the Newsweek story and scroll down to see a designer's expert analysis. He liked Hillary's branding, thought Obama's design looked good, and considered Edwards' use of a green trail off a star “crazy and daring.”

I had to go look at my own bumper sticker; not being a visual person, I hadn't even noticed there was any green on the Edwards sticker.

On the Republican side, he thought McCain had the worst logo and didn't like the militaristic star. Rudy's logo looks like “a brick wall,” and Mitt Romney's sticker looks like it belongs to “someone who's not going to win.” 

I also encourage you to read the comments below Beeton's post, because several MyDD readers had interesting things to say. For instance, Hillary's bumper sticker is apparently too tall to fit on old-fashioned chrome bumpers–only would work on newer vehicles. 

Several commenters also agreed with me that while McCain's logo may not be great, Romney's is by far the worst. McCain at least has good branding if he wants to appeal to the veterans' vote, which is important in GOP primaries.

What do you think about these and other bumper stickers? Have you seen many lately? Driving around town, I've just seen a few Edwards and Obama stickers, plus one Hillary sticker and one for Ron Paul.

I'm tied up this morning and can't go to either event, but Hillary Clinton will give a speech on Iraq at 10 am Tuesday at the Temple for Performing Arts in downtown Des Moines.

At the same time, Obama will hold a town hall meeting on the economy at DMACC's urban campus.

Link:

http://www.siouxcity…

Who can build a bigger crowd on such short notice? Hillary's campaign announced the event on Saturday, Obama's campaign announced on Monday.

If you attend either of these events, post a comment below to tell us what you thought.

So I inadvertently started a flamewar on Daily Kos and MyDD today by posting a diary about the Clinton campaign being missing in action from July 4 parades in the Des Moines suburbs. The Clintonistas were outraged that (to their mind) my headline implied that the Clinton campaign did not take part in any parades, when we all know that Bill and Hillary marched in the Clear Lake parade.

You can find the DKos version of the flamewar here here or the MyDD version here (the angry Clinton mob was a little less active at MyDD).

My point was that there was no Clinton campaign presence at the Windsor Heights parade I attended, and according to others I talked to, Clinton's campaign didn't have a vehicle in the Urbandale or West Des Moines parades either.

That surprised me, because Obama, Edwards and Richardson were well represented with campaign workers and/or volunteers. (The organizer of the Windsor Heights parade told me later that Biden's campaign was also in the parade, but I didn't notice them.) 

The Edwards people were able to get quite a few supporter cards signed during these parades. We were watching for people who waved or cheered as the Edwards truck rolled by, and three or four people ran up to those spectators and asked them if they would sign up as Edwards supporters. I didn't catch the number for the WDM parade, but I think they got about 65 cards signed during the Urbandale parade and another 15 to 20 in Windsor Heights.

The team also handed out a lot of Edwards stickers in WDM and Urbandale, but had run out early in the Windsor Heights parade.

Obama and Richardson people were handing out tons of stickers in Windsor Heights. My husband, who was with the kids on the side, was pretty sure he saw an Obama staffer with a clipboard as well, who was probably getting supporter cards signed. He wasn't sure whether anyone with the Richardson group was handing out cards. But yesterday evening at the big Windsor Heights celebration in Colby Park, I saw lots of people still sporting their Obama and Richardson stickers.

The point of my diary was that this was a missed opportunity for the Clinton campaign. Thousands of people watch these parades. I've got to believe there were Clinton supporters and leaners who would have signed up if there had been staffers out there spotting them and asking them. I know staff was probably preoccupied with the Clintons' Iowa tour, but the fact that Obama was in Iowa didn't prevent his campaign from having a strong presence in all of the parades.

A woman I know well in my neighborhood is a Clinton leaner (she says she needs more info about the other candidates before making up her mind). She's a general election voter who rarely votes in primaries. Despite many contacts from me last cycle, she and her husband did not attend our precinct caucus. So she is unlikely to turn up on a list of Ds to target in my precinct. I saw her along the parade route with her kids. If there had been a Clinton presence, I bet she would have taken a sticker or possibly signed up. They could have then targeted her closer to caucus time for GOTV efforts. But how will they find her now?

With Teresa Vilmain running the show and the Vilsacks on board, and plenty of money, I am surprised that the Clinton campaign didn't make sure they had a strong presence in all of the Des Moines-area parades.

What do you think, and which campaigns did you see in your towns? 

Incidentally, the only Republican campaign in the Windsor Heights parade was Brownback's; they were also in Urbandale and West Des Moines. I assume that some of the other Republican candidates were in those larger suburban parades. 

A new poll came out today showing Hillary Clinton and John Edwards way out in front of everyone else in Iowa.

Here are the results from the American Research Group (May's support in parenthesis)…

Clinton 32% (31%)
Edwards 29% (25%)
Obama 13% (11%)
Richardson 5% (8%)
Dodd 2% (2%)
Biden 2% (3%)
Kucinich 1% (4%)
Gravel 1% (1%)
Clark 1% (1%)
Undecided 14% (14%)

At first, I was surprised Hillary was leading with over 30% when other polls show her around 20%. However, if you look at the trends, Hillary has consistently been in the low 30's in this poll, except for May when she had just 23%. In fact Hillary is basically right where she was back in December before her campaign even started (32% to 31%).

Ezra Klein seems to think John Edwards' support is declining, but when you look at the trends in the American Research Group polls, it shows Edwards gaining support. In the past month he increased by 4%. Overall, he has improved from 20% back in December to 29% in June. 9% is the largest increase from any candidate.

If you look at Obama's trends in the American Research Group polls, he peaks at 23% in February right after he announced. He has been on a downward trend since then. I think Obama's support is stronger than the 13% he is polling because the polls is of likely caucus goers. Obama has made a big splash with younger people who would not be included in this poll.

Another interesting thing about this latest poll is looking at the preference by party. Among those who identified themselves as no party, 39% were in favor of Edwards, 31% in favor of Clinton, 11% in favor of Obama, and 3% in favor of Richardson. Edwards' support here only strengthens his campaigns claim that Edwards is in the best position to win independent voters and in red states.

Here's analysis from past ARG polls in May and March .

Originally posted at Century of the Common Iowan. 

There have been some claims that Hillary Clinton is “push-polling” against her main rivals, Barack Obama and John Edwards in Iowa and New Hampshire.

Her campaign appears to have commissioned some detailed message testing in both states. That is different from a sleazy push-poll (such as what Bush did to McCain in South Carolina in 2000, having people call up voters asking if it would change their opinion if they knew that McCain had an illegitimate black child).

Nevertheless, this kind of survey rubs some voters the wrong way. This Daily Kos diarist described it as “push-ish” polling.

I don't have a problem with message testing–I was a respondent on a lengthy message-testing survey commissioned by Chet Culver before last year's gubernatorial primary. I do think it's sleazy for Democrats to attack each other using right-wing talking points, but I don't blame campaigns for wanting to know which messages are going to be effective for and against them.

That said, I would really like to know which candidates are doing these surveys, and what kinds of messages they are testing. If you get a call like this, please try to remember the questions (taking notes if needed), and put up a diary afterwards. Or, if you prefer, you could share your info with me by e-mail (desmoinesdem AT yahoo.com). I will not reveal your identity.

The Richardson campaign sent an email out this afternoon with this surprising bit of information from internal polling they have done…

The Governor has rocketed up 10% among likely Iowa caucus goers in just three months, and now stands at 13%. No other Democratic candidate has made gains anywhere close to that over the same time period. In fact, amongst the likeliest caucus goers (those who attended the 2004 caucuses, voted in the 2006 primary and are definite to attend next year's caucus) the Governor has overtaken Senator Obama for 3rd place.

Richardson has been moving for the past few months in Iowa. It just shows what a couple million dollar of good, creative TV ads can do.

What is surprising about this, however, is that Obama's numbers are falling in Iowa.  He has been traveling the state, doing smaller events, yet he isn't moving up in the polls.

The Richardson campaign is also saying they will outraise John Edwards this quarter. If they do and if they are ahead of Obama in Iowa, I think it would mark that Richardson has officially entered the 2nd-tier and is knocking on the door of first-tier status. 

Last week was a significant one in Bill Richardson's campaign for President, with a major address in Washington, D.C. on climate change and how to end the bloodshed in Iraq, along with a visit to Iowa. 

It was also a significant week for peace and stability in Korea and Asia – which highlights Richardson's expertise in foreign affairs and his diplomatic skills. With Richardson as President we get two for the price of one – a can-do leader on domestic issues and an experienced diplomat that knows how to bring people and nations together.

I just got this press release on the Sierra Club Iowa topics e-mail list:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: 19 June 2007
Contact: Josh Dorner, 202.675.2384

                    Senate Says Firm No to Liquid Coal
         Vote Puts the Public Interest Ahead of Special Interests

          Statement of Carl Pope, Sierra Club Executive Director

“In spite of Herculean efforts by the coal industry and its friends in
Congress, the Senate today delivered a very important victory in the fight
against global warming by decisively voting against jumpstarting a new
massively expensive, massively polluting liquid coal industry–twice.
Senators showed that they understood that we need to leave behind the
failed policies of the past–and past Congresses.

“At a time when we need to get on the path to achieving an 80 percent
reduction in our global warming emissions by 2050–an achievable annual
reduction of 2 percent–the level scientists tell us is necessary to avoid
the most catastrophic effects of global warming, business as usual is no
longer acceptable.  Liquid coal produces nearly twice the global warming
pollution as conventional fuel and Senators were right to turn their backs
on it.

“Though Senators successfully blocked these damaging liquid coal
provisions, they now need to turn their attention to breaking a filibuster
led by Senator Domenici that is preventing a fair up or down vote on the
Bingaman Renewable Electricity Standard amendment.  Senators must also
block attempts by Senators Levin, Bond, and Pryor to further weaken the
CAFE compromise in the bill.

“We thank Senators for their leadership on this important vote and hope
they will continue to make the changes necessary to make this bill one that
we can truly be proud of.”

The person who posted the press release noted that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton both voted FOR the coal to oil subsidy, which thankfully did not pass the Senate.

That is pathetic. I'm not surprised that Hillary voted yes, because the Clintons have never seemed to care much about the environment.

But for Obama to support this subsidy for the coal industry suggests to me that he is not serious about dealing with global warming. Dodd, Richardson, and Edwards all have put forward superior proposals on this issue. 

UPDATE: Here is a link to the Senate roll call vote on liquid coal:

http://www.senate.go…

Of the presidential candidates, Clinton and Obama voted yes, Biden voted no, Dodd, McCain and Brownback did not vote. (I'm sure Dodd would have voted no.) 

Harkin and Grassley both voted no. 

Barack Obama will be in Webster City and Boone on Saturday, June 16.

He'll be in Newton and Ottumwa on Monday, June 18. 

Details about these events are after the jump, along with info about some other Obama campaign events which are taking place without the candidate (for instance, a Sioux City Women for Obama event on Thursday, June 14, an Iowa City fundraising barbecue for Obama on Saturday, June 16, and a Delaware County Women for Obama event on Friday, June 22).

If you attend any of these events, please share your impressions in a diary.

Sorry, I meant to put up a post yesterday about this weekend's campaign events. This is from Saturday's Register:

  Saturday

DEMOCRAT HILLARY CLINTON

Indianola:  4 p.m., fundraiser for state Sen. Staci Appel, Warren County Fairgrounds, Lester Building.

Ames: 6:30 p.m., Story County Democrats fundraiser, Prairie Moon Winery, 3801 W. 190th St.

DEMOCRAT BARACK OBAMA

Dubuque: Noon; canvass kickoff for “Walk for Change” event at Lincoln Elementary School, 555 Nevada St.

BEAU BIDEN, SON OF DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE JOE BIDEN

Des Moines: 1 p.m., house party, home of Drake law professor Dan Power, 3816 John Lynde Road.
Ames: 7 p.m., Story County Democrats fundraiser, Prairie Moon Winery, 3801 W. 190th St.

 

Continue Reading...

Responding to my post on the Obama health care proposal, Obama supporter RF wrote this:

I think we definitely need to know what ideas the candidates have on the major issues, have an idea where each candidate would like to take us.  But political reality is that the president will need to work with Congress on all legislation.  No president will ever get exactly what s/he wants in any piece of legislation.  It’s like obsessing about grammar and style in a rough first draft or an outline of an article, knowing that it will be completely rewritten.

Obviously any president will need to work with Congress. But it is very important to know what the president's starting point for negotiations will be.

I am a lousy negotiator, because I try to figure out what a fair compromise is, and that's my first offer. I have made that mistake several times in my life.

Look at Bush's record of legislative success. He puts in every bad idea on the Republican wish list, and he ends up getting almost everything he asks for. He doesn't say, Congress would never pass that extreme an energy bill. He just keeps asking for everything, even highly controversial things like drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge. In the end, ANWR was excluded from the bill, but Bush got all the other bad stuff he wanted.

Similar story on taxes. Bush has asked for all manner of ridiculous, unaffordable tax cuts. He kept asking, even if Congress didn't immediately pass what he asked for. At this point, the only thing he couldn't get through was the permanent repeal of the estate tax. But he aimed high and got almost everything else he wanted.

Hillary Clinton's starting point on health care will be a few nibbles here and there, trying to get health insurance for some portion of the enormous uninsured population. Even if Congress gave her everything she asked for (which wouldn't happen), we would be far from universal access to health care.

Barack Obama's plan seems much better than Hillary's, and more detailed, but from what I have read, it is also less than a universal plan, and it lacks some of the elements I like in Edwards' plan.

I am under no illusion that Congress would rubber-stamp what Edwards asks for, but I feel quite confident that he will drive a hard bargain and get us the best possible deal for health care. I feel that Clinton and Obama will not push Congress as hard on this issue. 

On energy policy, so far Dodd, Richardson and Edwards have offered the most ambitious proposals to combat global warming. No doubt these would not get through Congress intact, but it is very important to aim high (e.g. policies that would achieve an 80 percent reduction in carbon emissions by 2050).

So bring on the details, I say, and tell us what your legislative priorities would be. 

Yesterday Barack Obama released his health care plan. I didn't have time to blog about it, let alone read it, so I can't give you my impressions yet. I am glad he released a plan, because a robust debate over who has the best plan to improve our health care system can only be good for the country and for the Democratic Party.

The Des Moines Register's story on the plan is here.

The Financial Times covers the plan here.

Obama supporter “Democratic Luntz” makes the case on Daily Kos for why this is a great plan.

Ezra Klein, one of the blogosphere's leading wonks on health care policy, doesn't seem too impressed. At his blog and at the American Prospect, he notes that the plan would not achieve universal health care coverage and doesn't provide a public health insurance option that would be available to all Americans.  

Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) was quoted by the Financial Times as saying,

“The Obama plan relies heavily on the current employer-based system, which leaves workers at risk of losing their healthcare if they lose or change their jobs,” said Ron Wyden, a Democratic senator for Oregon. “It also puts US companies and workers at a disadvantage in the long term when they have to compete in a global economy against overseas companies whose workers get their healthcare paid by their government.”

California nurses' advocate Shum Preston slammed Obama's plan in a diary posted at MyDD:

This is the worst of all worlds.  On the one hand, we will continue to see patients abused by insurance industry execs–the very same abuse SiCKO documents.  On the other hand, insurance companies continue to run their plans–meaning we will continue to see astronomical medical inflation, bankruptcy, heartache, and repeated denials of care–BUT the federal government will find themselves on the hook for the sickest and most expensive patients.

I know some Obama fans read this blog. What do you think of the plan? Were you disappointed that it is not universal, or do you think Obama's critics are being too harsh?

I believe that the next president is going to have to make health care a priority, and should start with a universal plan. Perhaps it couldn't all get through Congress in one go, and you'd have to do some reforms piecemeal.

But I worry about Obama's decision to propose a plan that's less than universal. Your starting point for negotiations shouldn't be the reasonable compromise you think Congress might pass. 

This taps into my biggest concern about Obama, my sense that in his devotion to “consensus,” he would give half the game away before negotiations with Congress even begin. The president needs to aim high.

Conventional wisdom says that women voters are naturally drawn to Hillary Clinton, but Barack Obama and John Edwards are in no way ceding this ground to Hillary.

Both campaigns have established “Women for Obama” and “Women for Edwards” groups, and both Michelle Obama and Elizabeth Edwards are helping their husbands target women voters. On May 15 John Edwards held an Iowa women's town hall in Des Moines, the same day that the campaign released a list of 1,500 Iowa women who have pledged to caucus for Edwards.

Tuesday's Des Moines Register included a story about Michelle Obama's event the previous day at a coffee shop in the suburb of Waukee.

This passage caught my eye:

Nancy Bobo, a Des Moines Human Rights Commission member, attended the Waukee event. She said Barack Obama has her caucus vote.

“I don't think there's any other candidate that on Inauguration Day can get up and speak to the world and immediately the world knows it's a new day in America,” Bobo said. “We're electing a president, not just for Americans, but for the world. … We need someone that will really bring people together.”

I remember Nancy Bobo from the last caucus campaign. She was one of the key organizers of Women for Kerry, which held regular breakfasts for professional women and other events. After the 2004 campaign, Bobo and other organizers continued to hold these events, renaming the group Women for a Stronger America.

Among Iowa Democrats, Nancy Bobo is not as well-known as Clinton supporter Bonnie Campbell or Edwards supporter Roxanne Conlin, but this is still a big catch for the Obama campaign, in my view. A lot of professional women in Des Moines and the suburbs know and respect Nancy Bobo. Her backing may well persuade others to give Obama their serious consideration, or to give him another look if they had been leaning toward a different candidate.

The Sunday Register has a new Iowa poll.

The big news on the Republican side is that Romney leads. On the Democratic side, things look like this:

Edwards 29 percent

Obama 23 percent

Clinton 21 percent

Richardson 10 percent

Biden 3 percent

Kucinich 2 percent

Gravel 1 percent

Dodd less than 1 percent

not sure 11 percent

As with every poll, I think this understates the percentage of undecideds. My best guess is that 30 to 40 percent of the caucus-going Democrats I talk to are undecided.

I am not at all surprised to see Obama in second place, even if his lead on Clinton is within the margin of error. I have long argued that Edwards and Obama would finish ahead of Clinton in Iowa. 

Looks like spending money on tv ads was a smart move for Richardson. It helped that they were unusual and memorable tv ads. They've certainly got a lot of people talking. 

The poll claims a 4.9 percent margin of error. If you want to know more about the methodology, including the wording of the questions asked, click here.

The latest Iowa poll conducted by Research 2000 for KCCI-TV (the CBS affiliate in Des Moines) shows Clinton leading with 28 percent, Edwards within the margin of error at 26 percent, Obama with 22 percent, and Richardson with 7 percent.

It's a big change from the last Research 2000/KCCI poll, which was in December and showed Edwards and Obama tied at 22 percent, with Tom Vilsack in third place with 12 percent.

Click the link if you want to read the details.

If this poll is accurate, there has been a massive surge in support for Hillary Clinton over the past six months. I don't get that sense, but what are you hearing?

It looks like Richardson's early tv ads have raised his profile in Iowa quite a bit. He only had 1 percent support in the December poll.

In this poll, Obama does slightly better in head-to-head matchups with the Republican front-runners than Edwards, while Edwards does slightly better than Clinton.

I wonder what the likely voter screen is on this poll. In talking to Iowa Democrats who actually participated in the 2004 caucuses (as opposed to people who didn't but claim that they plan to participate in the upcoming caucuses), I have trouble finding Clinton supporters. I really do. I was just talking to a Clinton leaner yesterday, but even she said, without prompting from me, that Clinton has a lot of baggage, and she's just not sure if she could win.

I found the Bush approval numbers from this poll interesting. Approve/disapprove numbers for all respondents are 30/68.

The numbers for Democrats are 8/90.

The numbers for independents are 29/70.

Even among Republicans sampled, Bush's approval was only measured at 56 percent; disapproval was 42 percent. Those are shockingly poor numbers. 

Barack Obama spoke in Iowa City today before a crowd of several thousand. John Deeth liveblogged the event, and you can read all about it here.

If you’ve got a report about this event, or some other campaign appearance by any of the presidential candidates, please consider putting up a diary. Even if you’re not liveblogging or vlogging, it’s still interesting to hear about the stump speeches, the Q and A, and the reactions of the crowd.

I went down to Valley Junction in West Des Moines today, but their Earth Day event was rained out. I did notice that the Edwards supporters were out there talking with lots of people before everyone packed up their tables and tents, though.

I know this is really long for a typical blog post, but this is a column I wrote for Drake’s newspaper today.  I just thought it was an interesting topic you folks might enjoy:

Democratic selection might not be known until national convention

by Patrick Rynard (Columnist)

Issue date: 4/2/07 Section: Opinion

By this time next year, we ought to know who the nominees for president are. The candidates will have slugged it out in the early states, and an early winner will have gained the momentum to sweep the 20-plus states that make up this cycle’s “Super-Duper Tuesday.” Before Valentine’s Day arrives, all but one candidate will have dropped out on either side.

Or at least that’s what the conventional wisdom predicts will happen. I believe we may see a much different, much more exciting nomination. One in which the final outcome isn’t even decided for the Democrats until the national convention come August 25. Which would mean, yes, a major convention floor fight for the presidential nomination – something we haven’t seen since 1968.

Strategic Vision has released a new Iowa poll of 600 Republican and 600 Democratic likely caucus-goers.

The Democratic results are being discussed here at MyDD.

Numbers below the fold.

Senator Obama will be holding a Town Hall Meeting at the Polk County Convention Complex on Wednesday, February 21st, at 7:45pm (Doors open an hour earlier). The event is free and open to the public, but attendees must pick up a free ticket at one of the following locations:

Wells Fargo Arena Box Office

730 3rd Street

Des Moines, IA

(515) 564-8000

Monday-Tuesday 10:00AM-5:30PM

Mars Cafe

2318 University Avenue

Des Moines, IA

(515) 369-6277

Monday-Wednesday 6:30AM-11:00PM

Saturday 8:00AM-Midnight

Sunday 8:00AM-11:00PM

IBEW

1435 NE 54th Avenue

Des Moines, IA

(515) 265-6193

Monday-Wednesday 8:00AM-4:30PM

Baratta’s Restaurant

2320 South Union Street

Des Moines, IA

(515) 243-4516

Monday-Wednesday 11:00AM-2:00PM and 5:00PM-9:00PM

Saturday 4:00PM-11:00PM

Sunday 5:00PM-9:00PM

Zanzibar’s Coffee Adventure

2723 Ingersoll Avenue

Des Moines, IA

(515) 244-7694

Monday-Wednesday 7:00AM-9:00PM

Saturday 7:00AM-11:00PM

Sunday 8:00AM-6:00PM

A while back I read an article that mentioned John Edwards being endorsed by a plurality of the chairs of the Democratic Party county committees. I can’t remember where I read this, though, and I can’t seem to find it again.

Does anyone out there have detailed information about which county chairs have endorsed presidential candidates, and whom they have endorsed? I would imagine that so far Edwards and Vilsack have the lion’s share of the endorsements at this level, but I would like to see confirmation of this.

I would also be interested in knowing how many county chairs endorsed presidential candidates in 2004 and which candidates they endorsed, if this information is out there somewhere.

Today, the National Journal released their latest rankings on the Democrats seeking the presidential nomination in 2008.  Here are their rankings:

1. Hillary Clinton

2. Barack Obama

3. John Edwards

4. Bill Richardson

5. Chris Dodd

6. Tom Vilsack

7. Joe Biden

8. Wesley Clark

9. Dennis Kucinich

10. Mike Gravel

Make sure to check out what they have to say about each candidate and the fundraising predictions that they are making.

Let me add a couple of things to the questions or things they are talking about in their descriptions of each candidate.  It seems that they frame Clinton’s problem as one of responsibility or the ability to appear genuine.  Iowa Democrats, in my opinion, are looking for a genuine candidate who is able, ready, and willing to admit mistakes.  John Edwards and Barack Obama easily have that advantage over her — and I’m pretty sure some Iowa Democrats are already holding that against her.

Chuck Todd and Marc Ambinder are looking for some staff beyond Nevada to impress them some more and prove that he is everyone’s second choice.  Here’s some nice news that I have heard: former Iowa Democratic Party Field Director Brad Frevert has joined Richardson’s campaign as his go-to guy for Iowa field operations.  Frevert’s an Iowa-boy, and worked with Jesse Harris (who is Vilsack’s field guy), so we know he’s got Iowa field knowledge coming out the wazoo.

They note that Chris Dodd is basically raising lots of money because he’s got a cushy position as Chair of the Senate Banking Committee.  It is true, but he’s also taking leadership on restoring Habeas Corpus.  That’ll give him a little edge with which to hold on to some grassroots activists.

Finally, we get to Vilsack, and this is the question I have to ask: Does the endorsement of Barack Obama by Tom Miller and Mike Fitzgerald really mean anything?  Todd and Ambinder seem to think that’s bad news, as do the folks over at CityView’s Civic Skinny.  Now, maybe because I’m young I might be a bit naive about Iowa politics, but do Miller and Fitzgerald really have that big of a following in Iowa that their endorsement would swing Iowa voters to Obama?  I don’t believe that for one bit, but I guess I have to keep inserting the naive bit just in case.  Both Miller and Fitzgerald have been around in state Democratic politics forever and neither were indebted to Vilsack at all, so I don’t think there was a lot of pressure for Vilsack to lock up their endorsement.

And let’s not forget, Tom Miller endorsed Joe Lieberman in 2004 and Lieberman didn’t even make it to the caucuses.  I’m not saying Obama won’t make it to the caucuses (he will) but Miller seems to endorsed based on how well you’re doing early on in the race, not simply based on issues.

Finally, Joe Biden will be back in the state this weekend (or is supposed to be, but it looks like Sen. Reid might be scheduling a vote for Saturday), so I think we’ll officially be able to gauge Iowan reactions to his campaign after he’s been here as a serious candidate.

Anyway, what’re your thoughts on the rankings?  And if you haven’t already, make sure to vote in the poll on the left side of the page.

It’s official.  Barack Obama has way more friends than we do.

A new Web site, TechPresident.com, is keeping track of how many friends each presidential campaign has on MySpace.

Here’s the breakdown as of today:

Barack Obama: 38,777

Hillary Clinton: 22,054

John Edwards: 11,257

Tom Vilsack: 1,298

Dennis Kucinich: 958

Bill Richardson: 663

Joe Biden: 456

Christopher Dodd: 149

And look!  The Republicans are trying too!

Ron Paul (apparently a TX Rep., news to me): 2,165

John McCain: 1,295

Tom Tancredo: 1,025

Rudy Giuliani: 543

Mike Huckabee: 344

Mitt Romney: 217

Sam Brownback: 168

For the record, everyone should know that Borat of Kazakhstan has 421,238 MySpace friends.

Tila Tequila, the original MySpace “artist” and spammer has 1,670,131 MySpace friends.

Barack Obama has done a great job on Facebook too.  The One Million Strong for Barack group is up to 268,205 members.  How many of those are from an early primary state?  In fact, how many of those folks are not from Illinois?  Your guess is as good as mine.  But kudos to Team Obama for reaching out to social networks.

http://snipehunter-p…