Highlighting his considerable foreign expertise, Governor Bill Richardson last week set forth a path to avoiding military confrontation with Iran over its nuclear program. Richardson called on Bush administration to stop threatening Iran with “incendiary rhetoric,” and instead recognize our interests in engaging Iran diplomatically.
Richardson's week ended with a well-received speech before Latino leaders in Florida. Decrying the tone of the debate in the Senate on the immigration bill and how Latinos are portrayed in the media, Richardson asked:
Do you notice that when they depict immigrants, they have someone crossing a wall, jumping as if they are criminals? How about the farmers who break their backs working or those who are cleaning the toilets and working at the hotel where we stay? How about the American media covering the immigrant who died protecting his country?
Also of note, Pollster.com added Richardson to its Top Democrats charts, joining Clinton, Obama and Edwards. Charles Franklin of Pollster.com stated, “For other Democratic candidates, we've not seen a substantial upturn anywhere. Richardson stands alone in that respect at the moment.”
For a full review of Richardson's week, continue reading.
The way last night's exchange was set up, it was hard to declare an actual winner or loser in terms of substance and reference to the issues (especially since they all seemed to finish each other's sentences and agree for the most part, save for Gravel and Kucinich). Without trying to sound racist, Obama seemed poised to make a huge splash with the audience–he is, after all, an African-American man speaking to a largely African-American audience. However, that didn't happen. And maybe that's a good thing.
Overall, it seemed that a lot of candidates stood out. Clearly, Clinton stood out with her response that garnered her the only standing ovation. Biden stood out for the ridiculous things he said and the look he put on Al Sharpton's face (it must prove that the pundits and media elite really are his biggest constituency). Richardson again demonstrated that while he may be an excellent person-to-person on the ground campaigner, he still has a way to go in the debates. And Chris Dodd seemed to sound like the most invigorated, presidential-esque candidate up on the stage.
Did anyone do exceptionally poorly? Of course not. But it is clear that there wasn't really a favorite last night, someone who swept the field and dominated.
MSNBC's First Read documents a lot of the different responses from media outlets and the pundits last night on who stood out, who 'won,' and who bombed (though I don't understand how they thought Biden stood out, as they said so here). Clearly, the media elite seem to think that Clinton and Obama continued to stand out. But that's because the Clinton-Obama race is the horserace for them to follow and cover. The tit-for-tat between the two campaigns is what they're looking for.
So, I'm putting the question to you, registered Bleeding Heartland users: Who do you think stood out the most or performed the best (in essence: won) last night's forum? And don't just limit your answers to submitting your response in the poll; leave a comment explaining your vote, too. This is your community site. Make it worth your while.
I’ve blogged about it before over at Political Forecast, but I’m not too enthusiastic with the way that Senate Democrats have responded to Jim Nussle’s nomination to be Director of the White House’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Maybe it is all of the work I did during the gubernatorial race talking about Nussle’s failed leadership on the House Budget Committee as it’s chair–leading us into horrible deficits, uncontrollable spending, and ridiculous tax cuts for the richest Americans.
Or maybe it is just that we know he’s a confrontational hack who shouldn’t be charged with leading such a complex and tough office, one that requires someone with some kind of expertise is actual management and appropriate budgeting techniques. The reality, however, is the that OMB is largely a political office and it made sense for Bush to pick someone who was willing to give up the next two years to fight with Congressional Democratic leadership about the Republican President’s budget.
Still, the least the Democrats could do is raise objections to Nussle’s past experience–deficits and debt–and instead call for someone more inclined to have positive budget experience, yet be known for compromise and hard work, not hackery.
I guess that’s why I’m slightly surprised at today’s Register story where Jane Norman reports that Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND), the chair of the Senate Budget Committee, is not all that enthusiastic about Nussle’s nomination and has some reservations. Maybe that’s just political cover for the left flank by telling grumpy activists like me that they’re not planning for anything great coming from, but are going to confirm him anyway.
Or maybe it is some serious action that would make Conrad more inclined to grill him during confirmation hearings. Conrad is no liberal in the way that people consider Iowa’s Tom Harkin (who has indicated he’ll likely vote to confirm Nussle), but Conrad has a strong populist streak on trade and labor issues. Nussle’s record on those issues, particularly with the budget, is not good at all. Kudos to Conrad for stepping up, and I hope he takes it to another level.
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.
While this isn’t exactly Iowa-specific or Iowa-centered, I thought it was worth noting today’s MSNBC story on the left-leaning emphasis of journalistic contributions to federal campaigns and PACs.
Marc Ambinder decides to frame the issue as “all journalists are liberals” and says it doesn’t help fight the “liberal bias” title usually assigned to the MSM by the right-wing noise machine.
“This effort at ginning up controversy by revealing political contributions made by employees of media organizations seems fundamentally misguided. For one thing, no effort is being made to see if the people named have any ability to impact coverage of national politics. They have, for example, a former copy editor here at The Atlantic on their list, but what nefarious influence is she supposed to have had on the magazine’s coverage?”
You can find the full list of journalists and their contributions here. A large number of the folks listed are producers, copy editors, or other senior positions in journalistic enterprises. Clearly, personal life issues and personal politics don’t inherently have to enter the work life and the job that one person is doing. This goes for Republicans and Democrats.
Furthermore, this kind of ‘investigative’ reporting groups the kinds of journalists writing for Bloomberg in the same category as journalists writing for a magazine like The New Yorker. Journalism isn’t just about writing down the facts of current events and reporting them to the people, there is real investigative work and commentary that can be done–with a clear intent. Simply put, you can consider it analysis. Writers for The New Yorker are pretty clear about stating their intent and opinions in their pieces, which make them fundamentally different then the reporting done in a Bloomberg news piece.
Clearly, there are conflicts of interest with some of the people mentioned the in report, but is it really something pervasive among the journalistic community in this country? I guess that’s for the consumer and the reader to decide.
And if you’re curious for an Iowa-angle, the only journalist from Iowa making the list was Des Moines Register business reporter S.P. Dinnen, who gave $250 to John Kerry in 2004. His explanation can be found here.
Last November, right before the midterm elections, CityView also did a big cover story on bias in the media, particularly in Iowa. They covered all angles, including print, TV, and radio. I recommend reading the full story here as it provides great insight into the efforts of the outlets to maintain their objectivity and it also provides a good list of just who in the Iowa media is registered with which party (if any).
Finally, there is a poll in the extended entry asking if you think there is bias in Iowa’s press.
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.
So, I’m not sure how many folks have emailed or called their Representatives, but I know we’re being heard or read, just maybe not responded to. After posting my original post both here and on Political Forecast as well as forwarding an email out to the Iowa Rapid Response email list, I know many other activists around Iowa have sought to contact Representatives in the Iowa House. Jerry Depew of IowaVoters.org has been a leading voice on voting reform efforts in Iowa and has gotten the same standard response from Dave Jacoby that T.M. Lindsey received. I emailed Reps. Jo Oldson, Dave Jacoby, Dwayne Alons, Pat Murphy, and Kevin McCarthy. So far I haven’t received any responses. DesMoinesDem called Jo Oldson and left a message, and as far I as I know has not heard back.
Meanwhile, I have a correction to report. Dwayne Alons is not the Republican member of the subcommittee, but Rod Roberts is. Here is his contact information:
Rep. Rod Roberts (R)
House District 51 — Carroll County
Rod.Roberts@legis.state.ia.us
Sorry about the original confusion. Please make sure to contact Rep. Roberts and find out where he stands on VOICE, HF 805.
Even if folks aren’t responding to your calls and emails, keep following up and putting the pressure on them to support the bill. There may be concerns about funding and implementation, but that doesn’t mean the bill should be killed: It means the democratic process should be implemented, there should be a subcommittee hearing on the bill that is open to the public and that they should consider the problems with the bill there and work to improve it, not just kill it and put it aside for next year. Iowans shouldn’t have to wait for the necessary reforms to our campaign finance system.
One final update, the calendar for tomorrow in the House has not yet been released. As soon as I know if the House Appropriations Subcommittee plans on meeting, I’ll let you know. We’ve got to get calls and emails (and follow-ups) in ASAP. Keep up the hard work.
Today, we need action at the grassroots and netroots level to the bring Voter-Owned Iowa Clean Elections law out of subcommittee, to the full House Appropriations Committee, and then to the floor for debate in the Iowa House. Ed Fallon (and his group I’m For Iowa) and former Governor Tom Vilsack both supportHF 805 and right now the bill is in an appropriations subcommittee with instructions to kill the bill.
Members of that subcommittee include:
Rep. Dave Jacoby (D)
House District 30 — Johnson County
David.Jacoby@legis.state.ia.us
Rep. Jo Oldson (D)
House District 61 — Polk County
Jo.Oldson@legis.state.ia.us
Rep. Dwayne Alons (R)
House District 4 — Sioux County
Dwayne.Alons@legis.state.ia.us
Please email them or call the House Switchboard at (515) 281-3221 to get a hold of them and ask them to support HF 805, the VOICE legislation. The subcommittee is expected to meet either tomorrow or Wednesday — without large citizen support and efforts to communicate that support to them, they’ll kill the bill. We cannot allow that to happen. If the bill comes out of the subcommittee, it essentially becomes “funnel-proof” and must then be considered before the full House Appropriations Committee and would likely make it to the floor of the House for consideration.
When you contact your legislators, use this email from T.M. Lindsey as an example — and remember, be POLITE! Also, include in your email if they plan on voting for the bill or against the bill, both in subcommittee and in further debate. If they email you back, please post the response in the comments section and we can work to further inquire about the bill and where its going. From these responses, we’ll start to put a list together of where each Representative stands and we can put the pressure on them.
UPDATE by Chris (12:05 PM): I just got done watching Sen. and Mrs. Edwards’ press conference. She looks amazing and is going to be a fighter the rest of her life. Treatment starts soon for the cancer that is in a rib bone on her right side. Meanwhile, the campaign goes on and life goes on. Truly, they are one courageous family.
– – – – – – – –
It looks like Sen. John Edwards and his wife Elizabeth might be headed for another health issue. If you’ll remember, back in 2004 just a few days before the general election Elizabeth was diagnosed with breast cancer. After a rigorous course of treatment and recovery, she was diagnosed as healthy.
However, something must be up, as Edwards has scheduled a press conference tomorrow with his wife at 11 AM CDT, according to Ben Smith at the Politico. Yesterday he canceled a house party in event to be able to make it to an appointment Elizabeth had with her doctor this morning, according to a release issued by the campaign.
I met Elizabeth last year at a bloggers meeting and I also met the Senator himself and I can say they’re both courageous individuals and leaders. I respect both of them and hope and pray for the best for Elizabeth and their family.
On Friday, March 9th the first-ever Drake University-IowaPolitics.com Luncheon was held. The Luncheons will be monthly features at Drake with leaders from both parties, possibly presidential candidates, and other political big-wigs talking about issues, strategies, and everything else. The first luncheon featured Iowa Democratic Party Chair Scott Brennan and Republican Party of Iowa Co-Chair Leon Mosley. Chris Dorsey, Bureau Chief for IowaPolitics.com, acted as the moderator. You can listen to an MP3 of the event here through IowaPolitics.com (be warned: it is very scratchy).
My initial opinions of the two leaders was that Brennan clearly came prepared and ready to talk about the issues as a seasoned political professional while Mosley was the down-home Republican who said what he meant, even if it was offensive or wasn’t politically correct. Largely, it made me wonder how this man could possibly be chosen to represent a party as their chairman. While his down-home style, seemingly like most ordinary Iowa Republican caucusgoers, might be appealing to some I think it was a big turnoff to those in the audience seeking a more enlightened and vigorous discussion about the issues, not just gut reactions. He did frustrate a lot of people who asked questions and did get confrontational with some in the audience over Iraq. But with such a divisive issue, that’s to be expected.
My friend Matt Clark has a write up of the event here for IowaPolitics.com (Matt’s got an internship with them and has been doing some great reporting) and I think it demonstrates Mosley’s approach to the discussion. If that doesn’t clearly show it, the audio of the event will. I’m not sure if any of you readers were there, but if you were, I’d like to hear your thoughts. Or after you listen to some of the audio, feel free to leave your reactions as well.
After the event, the staff of IowaPolitics.com collected surveys filled out by those in attendance with questions relating to who they’d want to see at future events and asking for an overall rating of the event. My suggestion for the next luncheon was to attempt to get the Caucus Directors for both the IDP and the RPI to come in and talk strategy a bit. While this early most strategy would still be speculation, talking about what has worked in the past and what hasn’t could be mighty interesting to see.
Just a reminder to all of you BHer’s living in Polk County or who are on the Polk County Democrats Central Committee–the March meeting is Wednesday, March 21st at the Nevlen Center at 306 SW School in Ankeny. The meeting starts at 6:15 PM with the off-year caucus starting at about 7 PM or whenever the regular meeting ends. I am hoping to attend–if you’re members of the Central Committee and will be there, let me know and we can meet up.
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.
Here is the opening statement by floor manager and Senate President Jack Kibbie (D-Emmettsburg) on SR 15, which had 28 of 30 Democrats as co-sponsors (Rob Hogg and Steve Warnstadt didn’t sign on):
You can read the full text of his statement below the fold.
I admit, I didn’t track the debate or listen to it (one of the problems with being a college student is that you have a lot of stuff to do), but on a voice vote, the resolution passed the Iowa Senate. With a voice vote, there isn’t a total count of supporters or those in the opposition, but it would have passed anyway with at least 28 Yea votes thanks to the Democratic sponsors. Iowa’s Senate is now the third legislative body in the country to pass an anti-escalation resolution.
“It’s time for Congress to step up, and cut off funding for the status quo. I think it is time for us to end this war. I think it is very clear from the intelligence reports and from the American public … that this is a civil war and our kids are in the middle of it.
It is time for Congress to step up. They have constitutional and a moral responsibility to cut the funding and say to the President in very clear terms: we are listening to the American people …”
He makes it clear that Congress needs to send a message to President Bush, echoing the thoughts and opinions of the American people, and end this war. And he says it in a persuasive way.
Sen. John Edwards says that silence is betrayal when it comes to Iraq and he is absolutely right. Today he said a non-binding resolution against the President’s plan was essentially worthless. Sens. Chris Dodd and Russ Feingold agreed. I think that judging from Gov. Vilsack’s statements, he is in the same boat.
“We can’t wait for things to happen two years from now when we win in 2008. It’s time to match our values with action. Time to match our hope with vision.”
Some candidates are taking the time to seriously lead on Iraq as an issue in this race. Others are just backpedaling from earlier comments or simply treading water. Vilsack and Edwards have taken strong and clear positions. Dodd could even be categorized in the same boat.
Vilsack also has taken the lead in rejecting the idea of capping the amount of troops in Iraq, simply based on the logic of his position. It clearly doesn’t make sense to support ending the war in Iraq and opposing escalation, while at the same time saying, “Well, if you’re going to keep up the war anyway, you can only X amount of soldiers.” Instead, he’s advocating a position of actually fighting to end the war and bring troops home.
Vilsack’s right, and Democrats should unite behind the same message and in similar form: “It is time for us to end this war!”
Today is the last day for discounted registration for this year’s Yearly Kos convention, being held in Chicago, IL, from August 2-5. I just paid for my registration, since I’m a student and qualify for the ‘guidelines’ of being a student. Now I just have to find the money to make sure to pay for my hotel room for my stay there. I also gave a $25 donation to the convention as a whole.
The schedule of events and speakers haven’t been announced yet, but last year’s conference was amazing. I was sad I was unable to make it all of the way to Vegas, but I’m sure lots of you know just how the college life is essentially a nice money crunch.
If you can, please sign up and attend. I’m sure there will be several (if not all of) the Democratic presidential candidates, as well as other Democratic leaders from across the nation. Best of all, we’ll be able to network with like-minded people offline and in person. It doesn’t get much better than that.
At the beginning of the year, a lot of prominent liberal bloggers and activists noted the passing of Maria Leavey, an amazing Democratic force who helped push our message in DC and throughout Democratic and media institutions. You can read her obituary here in the Washington Post. Matt Stoller offers a fantastic memorial post here at MyDD.
In all of Maria’s work, there is a unique Iowa connection which, probably because of my age, I never truly got to know about or understand until now. Kay Henderson over at her Radio Iowa blog tells us that for almost ten years, Leavey worked for Senator Tom Harkin. She truly was a champion for liberal causes, just like Harkin still is today. I hope that DC and the Democratic establishment never forget what kind of a force Leavey was and I know that DC will likely feel quite empty without her presence.
I’m curious for your thoughts. As you know, I blog over at Political Forecast, treating it as my home blog. But I also want to make Bleeding Heartland be the best political and community blog in Iowa. My question for you then is whether or not I should haul over my posts from Political Forecast over here, or should I write other unique stuff here and kind of go back and forth? Or should I theme my writing here?
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.
