Governor Chet Culver has agreed to back Secretary of State Mike Mauro’s plan “to use state money to help counties switch to one uniform system with paper ballots,” the Des Moines Register reported on Saturday:

Culver said he has put together a “working group” that includes Mauro, lawmakers and Culver’s staff. They will try to figure out how to get counties equipped with optical scan machines that count paper ballots – as he has long advocated for, he said.

Good for him. As I’ve written before, spending money on equipment that would print receipts for touchscreen voting machines would just throw good money after bad. Better to ensure that every Iowan votes with a paper ballot, which can be recounted if necessary.

Also on Friday, Culver endorsed incumbent Leonard Boswell in the Democratic primary for Iowa’s third Congressional district:

He called Boswell a “dear friend” whose military background is valuable on national security issues, although he said he respects Fallon and supports the idea of competitive political races.

Meanwhile, the Register tries to make news by noting that Culver has refused to rule out running for president someday.

Come on, reporters. He’s barely a year into his first term, and with any luck we’re about to elect a Democrat who will serve as president until 2012 or 2016. Let Culver get a term or two under his belt before you start asking him whether he’ll run for president.

Barack Obama’s presidential campaign has raised more than $7.6 million since the Super Tuesday primaries, and Hillary Clinton’s campaign claims to have raised more than $4 million in the past two days.

It’s incredible to see these candidates’ supporters coming out in droves to contribute, and it should bode well for our nominee going into the general election.

At the same time, I urge anyone who has donated to a presidential campaign to set some money aside for worthy candidates seeking other offices.

As I’ve mentioned before, I am supporting Ed Fallon in the Democratic primary for Iowa’s third Congressional district. The incumbent, Leonard Boswell, has a huge money advantage, but as noneed4thneed recently pointed out in this thread, Fallon raised more money from individuals in January than Boswell raised from individuals in the whole fourth quarter of 2007.

If you are so inclined, you can donate to Fallon’s campaign through ActBlue.

Or, if you prefer not to get involved in this primary, I encourage you to seek out and support one of the many fine Democrats challenging incumbent Republicans this year.

For instance, in this diary RDemocrat makes the case for Heather Ryan, a candidate for Congress in KY-01 facing “one of the worst Congressmen in the land, Exxon Ed Whitfield.”

There are many state and local races worth donating to this year as well. In fact, a donation of a few hundred dollars to a statehouse candidate is more likely to make a difference than a donation to a presidential campaign that’s already raised more than $100 million.

I will be writing a check this week to the campaign of Jerry Sullivan, who is running in Iowa House district 59. It’s an open seat that leans slightly Republican, but Sullivan is a great guy with outstanding qualifications and experience in public service as well as the business community. I think he’s got an excellent shot to win my district for the Democrats.

Consider this an open thread to tell us which campaigns you plan to support this year.

As we all knew would be the case, Leonard Boswell is going to have plenty of money for this campaign. According to Federal Election Commission records, Boswell has more than $730,000 in the bank:

he raised about $131,000 during the last quarter of 2007, with $101,000 coming from political action committees.

Through 2007, he has raised about $730,000, of which $540,000 came from PACs, or close to 74 percent of his contributions.

I’m surprised that such a large proportion of the money came from PACs. I’m sure there will be much more where that came from in Q1 and Q2 of this year.

The Fallon for Congress website is still under construction, but you can donate to his campaign through ActBlue if you are so inclined.

I read on the front page of Wednesday’s Des Moines Register that this week, Representative Leonard Boswell introduced legislation directing the U.S. Postal Service to create a unique zip code for my suburb of Windsor Heights.

As we’ve discussed here at Bleeding Heartland, a recent survey of Windsor Heights residents showed that 99 percent are satisfied with the quality of life in Windsor Heights, and 89 percent described the city services and quality of life as “above average.”

Apparently the most frequent complaint city officials hear from residents is the lack of a unique zip code. Windsor Heights has three different zip codes; two mostly cover neighborhoods in Des Moines, and one mostly covers parts of Urbandale.

According to the Register on Wednesday,

Confusion between the ZIP codes and city boundaries has caused mail to be undelivered or returned to senders, has caused difficulty in tracking sex offenders, and has created problems for businesses.

Despite pleas from Windsor Heights city officials, U.S. postal officials have remained adamant that the suburb will not get its own ZIP code. Postal officials say the town has too few residents and doesn’t have a stand-alone post office. The city receives its mail from three post offices in Des Moines and Urbandale.

The article goes on to note that more than 100 Iowa cities and towns with smaller populations than Windsor Heights have unique zip codes, but that’s not the point of this post.

I personally know Windsor Heights residents who asked Boswell’s office years ago to help us get a zip code.

He just introduced a bill on the subject this week.

It’s too early to know whether Boswell’s proposed legislation has any chance of passing, or even getting out of the House Government Oversight and Reform subcommittee.

“We hope it will go forward, and the congressman will work hard with his colleagues in the House to get it moving,” Boswell spokeswoman McAvoy said.

Looks to me like this is another reason to thank Ed Fallon for challenging Boswell in the primary to represent Iowa’s third Congressional district.  

Last weekend a friend and fellow Edwards precinct captain left a message for me saying he'd been polled on the Boswell-Fallon race. On Wednesday evening, as I was cooking dinner, I got the same call. About an hour after that, the Obama precinct captain in my neighborhood called to let me know that she wants to volunteer for Fallon. She had just gotten the same survey call, which jogged her memory that she'd been meaning to call me about volunteering.

It was a long survey. I took notes for about half the call, but I had to put down my pencil from time to time, because my kids were jumping and trying to climb all over me, and I was afraid one of them would grab the pencil and get hurt. After the call I jotted down notes on other questions I could remember. If you've gotten this call, please leave a comment with any questions I have forgotten.

I'm putting as much as I can remember about the poll after the jump. I figured that Boswell's campaign was paying for the survey, based on the type of questions asked, and the fact that there were more questions asked about Boswell than about Fallon.

Just to make sure, I called Ed Fallon, and he confirmed that his campaign did not commission this survey and does not have any poll in the field right now.

If you don't care to read the whole extended entry, here's the summary. The poll asks a lot of questions about how Boswell is doing and what the respondent thinks about Boswell on various issues. All of the votes Fallon has criticized are mentioned in the survey, and respondents are asked whether they agree with Boswell's or Fallon's position. At various points during the survey, respondents are asked if they would vote for Fallon or Boswell if the primary election were held today.

The poll tests both positive and negative messages about Boswell, asking if the respondent agrees or if the statement would affect their likelihood of voting for Boswell. Interestingly, the survey did not test negative messages about Fallon. I kept waiting for questions about whether it bothered me that Fallon supported Nader in 2000, or was too liberal to win a general election, or whatever, but they were not in this survey. This was not a persuasion call against Fallon.

As far as I can tell, the Boswell campaign is trying to figure out which of Fallon's criticisms have the potential to hurt the incumbent, and which can be safely ignored.  

Follow me after the jump for more details.

In case you don’t normally read the Des Moines Register, Marc Hansen’s column on Ed Fallon in Tuesday’s edition was pretty good.

My only gripe relates to this passage:

Fallon hasn’t had many so-called “real jobs.” Like optometrist or truck driver, as opposed to “field canvasser” or “inner-city community organizer.”

I like Hansen, but this is a cheap shot. Why is engaging the public on political issues any less of a “real job” than driving a truck?

I’m sick of journalists denigrating political work and citizen empowerment.

As Chase Martyn reported for Iowa Independent, Ed Fallon officially announced on Wednesday that he will challenge Leonard Boswell for the Democratic nomination in Iowa’s third Congressional district.

Populista put up a diary here urging people to vote for Ed as Democracy for America’s “All-Star” candidate. I have already done so, and I hope you will too.

I’ll be writing more about this race in the coming months. For now, I want to briefly lay out the case for supporting Fallon’s challenge.

Leonard Boswell is a good person. I have voted for him every time and have contributed to his Congressional campaigns. However, he has been too willing to go along with the Bush administration on too many issues. He has voted to repeal the estate tax based on specious arguments from the Grover Norquist crowd. He voted for Bush’s horrible energy bill. He has voted to enable the Bush administration’s policies on Iraq and torture.

We have a chance to get a rock-solid progressive in this seat, and we should take it. While in the legislature, Ed Fallon had a 100 percent voting record on choice and labor issues, and was very strong on the environment and many other areas of importance.

Boswell sits on the Transportation Committee and has done nothing to help bring our national transportation policy back into balance. Fallon is talking about the need to get a handle on urban sprawl and invest in alternative forms of transportation as well as new road construction.

We are going to hear a lot from the Democratic Party establishment about Fallon supposedly being unelectable. I want those people to explain to me why Boswell’s winning margin in 2006 was so much less than Chet Culver’s winning margin in the counties that make up the third district.

Many Democrats, particularly progressives, simply do not feel that Boswell is representing our interests well enough.

Fallon has the potential to draw cross-over votes from independents and Republicans. He did it in the 2006 gubernatorial primary, and he can do it again. But just as important, he is a candidate Democrats can enthusiastically vote for.

Those who say that we can’t take a risk on replacing Boswell also need to explain their game plan for holding on to Iowa’s third district after the 2010 census. Iowa is going to lose a Congressional seat when the districts are redrawn. The most likely scenario I can see is that Boswell would retire in 2012, leaving us with no incumbent to run against Tom Latham or Steve King in the newly-drawn third district.

We are better off getting a new incumbent in place before that happens.

Finally, I believe that Fallon’s challenge will benefit Democrats even if he does not win the primary. As Chris Bowers reported last month at Open Left, Boswell voted against an Iraq funding bill for the first time ever after rumors about Fallon’s challenge started circulating.

I have also heard that Boswell recently signed onto a global-warming pledge that he refused to sign months earlier, when Congressmen Bruce Braley and Dave Loebsack backed it.

We’ve seen the voting records of other Democratic incumbents improve after progressives challenged them in primaries. Jane Harman and Ellen Tauscher of California come to mind. If Boswell does win the primary, I expect that his Congressional votes will better represent the will of his constituents.

If Fallon wins the primary, we will be favored to elect a strong progressive to this seat, given his base in Polk County and the expected high turnout for Democrats in a presidential election year.

I respect the views of Bleeding Heartland readers who are sticking with Boswell, but I urge you to consider the case for Fallon. If you already support Fallon, please consider donating to or volunteering for his campaign. They will need all hands on deck, since the party establishment will line up behind Boswell.

UPDATE: The House passed this bill 235-181, with 14 Republicans voting with the Democratic majority and 7 Democrats voting against the bill. Bush says he will veto. Will Senate Democrats cave and remove the tax and renewable electricity standard provisions (see below)?

The U.S. House is set to vote on a big energy bill today (Thursday), and it’s the best bill we’ve seen yet on this subject. After the jump I am posting a detailed statement from Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office describing some of the key provisions in the bill:

http://www.speaker.gov/legisla…

Title XIV would break new ground at the federal level by establishing a “renewable electricity standard”:

Establishes a 15 percent national renewable electricity standard (RES). This market-based mechanism will require electric utilities to use renewable energy to generate 15 percent of their electricity or to purchase renewable energy credits from others to meet this standard by 2020.

That provision will be a major sticking point with Republicans in the Senate, as will this:

Upholding Fiscal Responsibility and Bipartisanship

•    This legislation does not add to the deficit and all revenue offsets resulted from bipartisan negotiations.

•    Revenue raisers include $13 billion in scaled-back provisions that repeal tax breaks that were needlessly given to Big Oil companies at a time of record profits. The bill also includes other revenue raisers from the President’s budget.

•    Specifically, the bill closes a loophole written into the international tax bill (H.R. 4520) and rolls back the 2005 Energy Bill tax break for geological and geophysical expenditures. These provisions are narrowly targeted toward the large integrated oil companies.

•    In addition, to ensure that oil and gas companies are paying their fair share of taxes, it closes a tax loophole that allows big oil and gas companies to game the system by understating their foreign oil and gas extraction income.  

•    Other revenue raisers in the bill come from the President’s budget and from bipartisan negotiations with the Senate, the largest of which strengthens reporting on the value of stock to make sure that gains are taxed.

On the e-mail loop of the Iowa Renewable Energy Association, there has been some discussion of whether these measures could survive a Senate vote. An excerpt from a piece in “Energy & Environment News” (I am not a subscriber so can’t post a link) quotes Tom Harkin as saying that some of the good provisions may be stripped from the bill so that it can be passed this year without President Bush vetoing it.

Although Chuck Grassley apparently would vote for the renewable electricity standard himself, his top priority is securing a multi-billion-dollar giveaway to the corn-based ethanol industry. If the renewable standard or tax credits for solar and wind power have to be stripped from the bill to get it through the Senate, he is likely to go along with that.

Alternatively, Harry Reid may delay consideration of the energy bill if he thinks he doesn’t have the 60 votes to break an expected Republican filibuster. That would make passage of the bill this year very unlikely.

Bottom line: the House picture is encouraging, but the Senate picture is depressing. Please consider donating to one of our fine Senate candidates in other states, so we can elect more and better Democrats to the Senate in 2008.

The full text of the statement from Pelosi’s office is after the jump. 

John Edwards frames a powerful new argument to the describe our Broken System of Government, which we put up with in Washington DC.

If you haven’t seen it yet, it well worth a listen:

Part 1:



http://youtube.com/watch?v=B6_…

Part 2:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=vB4…

Part 3:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Npx…

Great Imaginary, fiery rhetoric!

But what exactly is “this Wall around Washington” that Edwards says we must tear down?

Explore with me, a few ways in which the “Rhetoric Meets Reality”, after the fold, in a simple photo-essay:

The rabble-rousers over at Open Left (Chris Bowers, Matt Stoller, and Mike Lux) have launched a campaign against “Bush dogs”, defined as Democratic members of the U.S. House of Representatives who have in 2007 both capitulated on the Iraq funding bill and voted to allow Alberto Gonzales warrantless wiretapping powers.

You will probably not be surprised to learn that IA-03's own Leonard Boswell makes this list. Like many in the group, he is in the “Blue Dog” faction in the House. (Other “Bush dogs” are in the “New Democrats” group in the House, but Boswell does not belong to that club.) 

Boswell's disappointing vote on these issues is only the latest in a long string of disappointments for me, from voting for all of Bush's horrible energy bills to supporting permanent repeal of the estate tax to voting for the “torture” bill in the fall of 2006.

Does Boswell really represent such a conservative district that he “has” to vote with Republicans on these issues? No, he does not. His district actually has a partisan index of D+1.4, whereas many of the Bush dogs are in districts that lean Republican, or deep-South districts where rank and file Democrats tend to be more conservative. 

Chris Bowers specifically criticized Boswell in this post, in which he made the case that Boswell is NOT “voting his district” when he casts his lot with the Bush White House.

Paul Rosenberg provides some interesting data on the “Bush dogs” and how vulnerable they might be to a strong challenge: click here for more. 

Some in the blogosphere have criticized this effort to target in possibly hit Bush dogs with primary challengers, saying it could endanger our majority in the House and is bad form to “meddle” in other states' politics. Chris Bowers responded to the criticism here, and Mike Lux weighed in on the dispute, and his desire to promote progressive voting in Congress without harming Democrats in truly vulnerable positions, here.

What do you think? I support letting Boswell know when we are upset about his voting, but I don't see a primary challenge as having much chance here. Anyway, Iowa is going to lose a district after the 2010 census, and Boswell will likely retire at that point.

Primary challenges against other “Bush dogs” may be well worth the effort, on the other hand. Even if we don't beat these people in the primary, we can push them to vote better, as Jane Harman and Ellen Tauscher (both California Democrats) have been doing since netroots progressives targeted them for primary challenges. 

The liberal blogosphere has been disappointed that the U.S. Senate (including 16 Democrats) capitulated to President Bush on warrantless wiretapping this week.

However, we had some great news out of the U.S. House on Saturday. The chamber passed an energy bill that would take away $16 billion in tax breaks for oil and put more resources toward renewable energy.

Even better, I heard from Rich Dana (former president of I-Renew) on the I-Renew e-mail list that the House approved an amendment calling for a 15 percent Renewable Electricity Standard. That would require the U.S. to have 15 percent of electricity generated from renewable sources by 2020.

The vote on the RES amendment was 220-190.

Rich has the details on that crucial vote:

Democratic
Ayes188
Noes38
NV9
Republican
Ayes32
Noes152
  NV19

TOTALS
Ayes220
Noes190
No Vote28

Iowa – Loebsack, Braley, Boswell Aye  King, Latham No

Fortunately, the Democrats in the Iowa delegation all voted yes. (I was worried about Boswell and sent an e-mail to his office on Thursday about this issue.)

But it's worth noting that 38 Democrats voted against the RES, which would not have passed without the 32 Republicans who voted for it.

We've got a Democratic majority in the House, but clearly we've still got a lot of work to do if we want a reliable progressive majority. 

The next big battle will be in the conference committee that will reconcile the House and Senate versions of the energy bill. But it looks like we've got a decent chance at keeping the RES provision in there, since it was included in the Senate version. 

PS: At Daily Kos yesterday, user apsmith posted a helpful analysis and comparison of the energy plans proposed by Edwards, Obama, Clinton and Richardson.

Click the link and read through the chart–it will be worth your time, and you'll see why Daily Kos readers who took the poll attached to this diary vastly preferred the Edwards and Richardson plans to the Obama and Clinton plans.

My only criticism is that apsmith didn't include Dodd in his analysis. Dodd's got a good energy policy as well. 

UPDATE: Lee Honeycutt posted this helpful information on the I-Renew e-mail list:

Anyone wanting to read the RES bill can find it online at:

http://thomas. loc.gov/cgi- bin/query/ z?c110:H. R.3221:

You can also download a PDF version of the 786-page bill:

http://frwebgate. access.gpo. gov/cgi-bin/ getdoc.cgi? dbname=110_ cong_bills& docid=f:h3221ih. txt.pdf

So Leonard Boswell voted for the Iraq War supplemental funding bill today, just like we all knew he would. Sad as that is, it's not why I felt compelled to write this post. Pretty much every vote Boswell has ever cast related to Iraq has been the wrong vote, in my opinion.

What prompted this post was a press release from the Center for Food Safety, which came to my attention this evening. Leonard Boswell apparently inserted language into the 2007 Farm Bill that would preempt any state prohibitions against any foods or agricultural goods that have been approved by USDA. That would include genetically modified foods. The press release does not name Boswell as the author of the language in question, but advocates have learned that he was behind the move.

How disappointing that as the chairman of the House Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry (a subcommittee of the House Ag Committee), Boswell is using his influence to weaken consumer protection. Does he think the Farm Bureau will reward him for this? They're always going to endorse his opponent, no matter how much he delivers for big agribusiness in the Farm Bill.

As a resident of Iowa's 3rd district, I have long felt that we could do a lot better than Leonard Boswell. He is often not with us on environmental policy, energy policy, tax policy, or foreign policy. Even so, this move disappoints me.

If you live in the 3rd district, please contact Congressman Boswell and tell him that federal law should not prevent states from prohibiting certain types of food or agricultural goods.

You can send an e-mail directly to his office by clicking here.

Here is mail, phone and fax contact information:

DC Address:
The Honorable Leonard L. Boswell
United States House of Representatives
1427 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-1503
DC Phone: 202-225-3806
DC Fax: 202-225-5608
Email Address: http://boswell.house…
WWW Homepage: http://boswell.house…

District Office:
300 East Locust, Suite 320
Des Moines, IA 50309
Voice: 888-432-1984
FAX: 515-282-1785

The full text of the press release follows:

  *CENTER FOR FOOD SAFETY OPPOSES PROPOSAL IN FARM BILL TO BAR STATE
  PROHIBITIONS ON GENE-ALTERED FOODS*

    /House Subcommittee Today Approves Language Slipped into/
    /Farm Bill that Prevents States from Protecting their Citizens/

*Center for Food Safety Recognizes that Proposal Ties States’ Hands,
Weakening*

*Food Safety Protections at a Time When they Need to be Strengthened*

*Washington** May 24, 2007* – Earlier today, the House Subcommittee
on Livestock, Dairy and Poultry approved new language slipped into the 2007 Farm Bill that pre-empts any state prohibitions against any foods or agricultural goods that have been deregulated by the USDA. The passage appears to be aimed at several recently enacted state laws that restrict the planting of genetically engineered (GE) crops, but could also prohibit states from taking action when food contamination cases occur.

“Given the recent spate of food scares, it’s shocking to see this attempt to derail safeguards for our food and farms,” said Joseph Mendelson, Legal Director of the Center for Food Safety. “We need a Farm Bill that will promote stronger food safety standards, not one that attacks these vital state-level protections.”

The passage approved by the House Subcommittee today states that “no State or locality shall make any law prohibiting the use in commerce of an article that the Secretary of Agriculture has inspected and passed; or determined to be of non-regulated status.”

State legislatures, local governments, and citizens of many states and localities have adopted prohibitions on the planting of certain genetically altered products. Some of the state-level laws that may be pre-empted or compromised if the proposed Farm Bill language were adopted include:

· *Legislation in California and Arkansas that gives these states the power to prohibit the introduction of GE rice.* The major rice growing states are particularly concerned after last fall’s revelations that several unapproved varieties of GE rice had contaminated natural rice, resulting in massive losses for US farmers when export customers in Asian and Europe closed their markets to US rice.

· *Legislation adopted this year in the state of Washington, which prohibits planting of GE canola in areas near the State’s large non-GE seed production*. Brassica (cabbage, broccoli, and other such crops) seed producers pushed for this legislation, since GE canola can cross-pollinate with and contaminate natural cabbage seed. The Skagit Valley area in Washington produces $20 million in vegetable seed annually and is home to half of the world’s cabbage seed production;

· *County bans on planting of GE crops in four California counties.* To protect their organic and natural food producers, four California counties have adopted bans or moratoriums on planting of GE crops;

An overview of these and other state- level regulations of GE crops and foods is available at:
http://www.centerfor… .

In addition, the vague language of the proposal raises concerns that states would be barred from taking action when food safety threats arise. For example, states could be barred from prohibiting the sale of e. coli-tainted ground beef if the meat has passed USDA inspection, as was the case in last week’s massive 15-state beef recall.

The biotechnology industry has sponsored language akin to the text approved this morning in the House subcommittee in dozens of state-level attempts to pre-empt state regulations on GE crops. They also joined the food and agribusiness industries last year in pushing for a federal “Food Uniformity” law, which would have gutted numerous state-level food safety laws.

* *

*/The Center for Food Safety/*/ is national, non-profit, membership
organization founded in 1997 that works to protect human health and the
environment by curbing the use of harmful food production technologies
and by promoting organic and other forms of sustainable agriculture. On
the web at: http://www.centerfor…

Ed. Note: Cross-posted Political Forecast.

In a day of big news on the 2008 trail (new Dodd ad, memo about Clinton campaign pondering skipping Iowa, Edwards giving a big foreign policy speech, etc), here is something worth recognizing as a standout point: Sen. Christopher Dodd is going to vote against the new Iraq supplemental funding bill, the one without a timeline for withdrawal. The video of his reasoning is below:

And here is the full release from the campaign is below:

“This war has gone on longer than World War II and there is no end in sight. Yet we are less secure and more isolated than before. We have lost 3,400 patriotic Americans and shattered our standing in the world. We are spending $2 billion a week – $8 billion a month – and are now caught in the middle of a civil war. Still, this President wants more of the same and this bill would give him his wish.

I cannot and will not simply give this President another blank check.

Half-measures and equivocations are not going to change our course in Iraq. If we are serious about ending the war, Congress must stand up to this President’s failed policy now – with clarity and conviction.

As the debate on the war continues, I will continue to fight for a firm deadline that is tied to funding which will allow for a responsible redeployment of U.S. combat troops in Iraq – because that’s the only way to responsibly bring this war to a conclusion.

I hope my colleagues would do the same.”

This comes after a new ad was released this morning by his campaign, where he called out Senators Clinton and Obama — the presumed front-runners — for finally coming to his position and voting in favor of the Feingold-Reid-Dodd Amendment in the Senate. It was a big time move, and I think a good way to gain traction here in Iowa.

Both Clinton and Obama are strong in Iowa, behind the powerhouse that is John Edwards. Right behind those three is Bill Richardson, who has gained traction with his message calling on Congress to de-authorize the war in Iraq and his new ads. In the latest Iowa Poll, Dodd wasn’t gaining traction. With the ads and the strong movement against the war in Iraq and the calls for troop withdrawals by March of 2008, Dodd is putting himself firmly in the anti-Iraq war camp with Richardson and Edwards. While Obama has consistently been against the war, he can’t put himself in this camp because he’s not coming out strong for withdrawal, deauthorization, or any other kind of leadership position on the issue. Clinton is Clinton on Iraq (I’m glad she’s calling on the Pentagon to do more to prepare for withdrawal scenarios, but toeing the line just doesn’t mesh with me).

Sen. Dodd is a strong voice to end this war, particularly in the Senate. Sens. Clinton and Obama have started following his lead, but beyond Sen. Russ Feingold, he’s the only other one pushing strongly in the Senate for an end to this debacle. And he deserves credit for bring that debate into the Senate, as well as bringing it to the race by forcing Clinton and Obama to clearly take a stand. And now, as the closing part of the release shows, he’s making an issue of how Clinton and Obama are going to vote on the supplemental. And they should vote against it. Make this a Republican bill — make them own it. They’re the ones continuing this mess.

I’m staying neutral for a while, but if a candidate wants to keep convincing me they’re worthy of being the next President, then they need to start leading the charge to put an end to the Iraq war. It is that simple.

Cross posted from my own blog.  I promise that this won’t be the rule, but I already wrote this yesterday while waiting for the BH confirmation e-mail.

I’ve been dying to blog about this site since I saw the beta call back in November.  Opencongress.org aims to add much-needed transparency and usable search tools to open the often closed, and intentionally obscure workings of the United States Congress.

While Democrats picked up two new seats to claim a majority of Iowa’s Congressional delegation, the overall congressional vote was tilted in the Republican’s favor – they won 520,798 votes (50.6%) to our 490,476 (47.7%).  This margin represents less than the margin in just Congressional District 5, but that margin is slated to move on over into at least one of our competitive districts in six years.

A similar result can be seen in Indiana, where Democrats lost the statewide congressional vote while picking up three seats to bring them to a majority.  The only other state with as dramatic results as Iowa and Indiana is New Hampshire, but considering they won their only two Congressional seats, they obviously managed an overall majority as well.  It might just be the fact that Democrats were doing so poorly before the election that the races they weren’t able to compete in – CD 4 and 5 here and 4, 5, and 6 in Indiana – overwhelmed the results of what were targeted, competitive races on both sides.  We’ll get a better idea in 2008, when Republicans are the ones trying to pick off our seats.