UPDATE: Corrected to note that the endorsement comes from Caucus4Priorities, the political arm of the 501 (c)3 Iowans for Sensible Priorities.

Okamichan13 has a diary up on this at Daily Kos: 

 http://www.dailykos….

Greg Sargent reported at TPM that Iowans for Sensible Priorities will endorse John Edwards on November 9:

http://tpmelectionce…

The Edwards Evening News Roundup team at Daily Kos pointed me to this link from ABC News:

http://abcnews.go.co…

The decision to endorse Edwards over Illinois Sen. Barack Obama came down to “courage versus caution,” according to the group's executive director.

 

“There's a rhetoric gap with Obama,” executive director Peggy Huppert told ABC News. “He told me personally: 'Trust me. Ideologically, I'm with you.' But people have told him to be afraid of being pushed too far to the left. He doesn't bring up [cuts in Pentagon spending] on his own. He doesn't incorporate it into his speeches. He skirts around it. He talks around the edges. He never gets to the heart of it in strong, bold language.”

Chase Martyn says Bill Richardson worked hard to get this endorsement, while Hillary Clinton didn't even bother to return the group's questionnaire:

http://cmondisplay.c…

I should note that Peggy Huppert told Sargent that all of the candidates did return the questionnaire. It would surprise me if Hillary did not even bother to seek the endorsement of this group. They are everywhere on the campaign trail and at other events where progressives gather.

UPDATE: From the ABC piece, it is clear that Hillary did return the group's questionnaire. However, according to Huppert:

Although Clinton filled out the group's detailed policy questionnaire, she was not among the final two candidates under consideration for the endorsement.

 

“She didn't answer any questions 'yes' or 'no,'” said Huppert. “She has a refusal to commit to anything.”

Iowans for Sensible Priorities is the group with that nifty pie chart graphic you see on car magnets and yard signs all over the place in Iowa. Here's a link to a photo I took of their spinning wheel on Labor Day:

http://www.flickr.co…

And here's a link to a photo of the car they drive all over the state:  

http://www.flickr.co…

I need to learn how to upload photos on this site!

Anyway, this is a good catch by the Edwards campaign. 

I saw in the Register that STAR-PAC, a group created to oppose the arms race, has endorsed Bill Richardson for president:

http://www.desmoines…

STAR PAC, an acronym for Stop the Arms Race Political Action Committee, said Wednesday that its central committee voted to support Richardson for many reasons, particularly the Democrat's promise to pull all U.S. forces out of Iraq within six months to one year.

“His message is the same wherever he speaks – to a military audience in Georgetown, a New Hampshire town meeting, in a rural Iowa community or at STAR PAC's candidate forum with the governor in August,” said Harold Wells, Iowa's STAR PAC chair.

This is a great get for Richardson. It has to be considered a blow to Barack Obama, who is campaigning as the guy who was right about Iraq from the beginning. I think it was a mistake for him to let other candidates get to his left on defunding the war and bringing our troops home quickly.

The Register notes that only Richardson, Edwards, Obama and Kucinich returned STAR-PAC's questionnaire. I'm not surprised that none of the Republican candidates gave this group the time of day, but I am surprised that Hillary blew them off. 

I'm late to be posting about this, but on Monday some 35,000 supporters of Ron Paul raised over $4.3 million for his campaign, shattering single-day online fundraising records. 

Jerome Armstrong, founder of MyDD, wrote an interesting commentary on this incredible achievement of Paul's supporters. The fundraising drive wasn't even orchestrated by the campaign.

Matt Stoller's take on the Ron Paul revolution is here at Open Left.

Is Ron Paul's campaign doing much in Iowa? I see some yard signs and hear some ads on the classic rock radio station in Des Moines, but that's about it. MyDD linked to some tv ads Paul is running in NH–they are pretty amateurish:

http://www.mydd.com/…

I realize that as a candidate, he is better suited to the political culture in New Hampshire than Iowa, with more religious conservatives. Still, with the money he has in the bank, he could make a very strong ad buy in Iowa. Admittedly, it's late to be putting together a field operation here.

What do you think? Is there any potential for Paul to finish in the top three in Iowa? 

Note: Many of you probably received this mailing, but in case you didn't, or are not from Iowa, I'm cross-posting this entry I wrote for the MyDD audience.

Last week I wrote about John Edwards' recent direct mail piece to Iowa caucus-goers. This past Friday, I received a second mailer from the Edwards campaign, a shorter piece focused on Iraq.
Here is a link to the mailer (pdf file) (thanks to NC Dem Amy for the link).

For those who do not want to download the pdf file, I'm reproducing the text after the jump.

UPDATE: In today's mail I received the latest piece from the Edwards campaign. This one was about health care, and I will reproduce the text when I have time. 

Never mind the rumors about Sam Brownback endorsing Rudy Giuliani for president; the Kansas senator decided to back John McCain after all. Cyclone Conservatives has a good write-up here, or you can read the Des Moines Register's coverage here. I liked Mike Huckabee's comment in the Register:

Huckabee, campaigning Wednesday in Cedar Falls, said he would have liked Brownback's endorsement, but “we're getting a lot of Brownback's supporters. If I had a choice between him and his supporters, I'll take his supporters.”

Don at Cyclone Conservatives says he knows former Brownback supporters who have switched to Huckabee or Fred Thompson. The person I know who interned at the Brownback campaign plans to volunteer for McCain. It will be interesting to see how it all shakes out. 

Meanwhile, Bob Vander Plaats, who's chairing the Huckabee operation in Iowa, says they are not worried about missing out on the endorsements of Brownback or evangelical Pat Robertson, who recently backed Rudy Giuliani.

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.

Speaking in Oskaloosa today, Hillary Clinton wanted to make sure Iowans knew that she is “tough enough” to handle whatever people throw at her in the presidential campaign:

http://www.desmoines…

“With 60 days left until the caucus, things are going to get a little hotter, because obviously the campaign is going to get heated up and speeded up,” Clinton said.

“I remember very well what Harry Truman once said . . . ‘If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.’ Well, I feel real comfortable in the kitchen, so the heat is going to get hotter and hotter.”

Meanwhile, Clinton's surrogates and supporters keep whining about the “politics of pile-on.” This is from a fundraising e-mail the campaign sent out shortly after last Tuesday's debate:

If you saw the debate Tuesday night, or if you've seen the  news coverage since, then you know that this campaign has entered a  new phase.

On that stage in Philadelphia, we saw six against  one. Candidates who had pledged the politics of hope practiced the  politics of pile on instead. Her opponents tried a whole host of  attacks on Hillary.

She is one strong woman. She came  through it well. But Hillary's going to need your help.

Her  opponents, trying to boost their falling poll numbers, started  attacking Hillary weeks ago on the stump. Now they're doing it in  the debates. And soon they'll begin a barrage of negative TV ads and  mailings in the early primary and caucus states.

But Hillary  knows that voters want real change — not more negative attacks. And  with just 60 days left before the Iowa caucuses, now is the time to  show her that you are right there with her.

Of course, the Clinton campaign, which has repeatedly promoted Hillary as tough enough to withstand the Republican attack machine, has been planning all alone to whine and complain as soon as opponents challenged her on the issues:

http://news.yahoo.co…

Clinton's advisers, speaking on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to discuss internal matters, said there is a clear and long-planned strategy to fend off attacks by accusing her male rivals of gathering against her.

The idea is to change the subject while making Clinton a sympathetic figure, especially among female voters who often feel outnumbered and bullied on the job.

As one adviser put it, Clinton is not the first presidential candidate to play the “woe-is-me card” but she's the first major female presidential candidate to do it.

The victim is a familiar role for Clinton.

Over at Salon, Tim Grieve has already called bullshit on the Clinton campaign's spin, noting that her campaign continually feeds negative material about other candidates to reporters, all the while pretending to be disappointed that the others are supposedly rejecting “the politics of hope.”

http://www.salon.com…

I also recommend Sirius's diary, “Note to Clinton: The Issues Are Fair Game”:

http://www.mydd.com/…

Kate Michelman, former head of the National Abortion Rights Action League, had a great take on this as well:

http://www.openleft….

When unchallenged, in a comfortable, controlled situation, Senator Clinton embraces her political elevation into the “boys club.” She is quick to assure listeners she is plenty tough enough, that she's battled tested, ready to play be the same rules as the boys.

But when she's challenged, when legitimate questions are asked, questions she should be prepared to answer and discuss, she is just as quick to raise the white flag and look for a change in the rules. She then calls questioning, 'attacking;' she calls debate among her peers, 'piling on.'

It's a political strategy, no doubt focus grouped and poll tested: make it look unseemly that this group of men would question her and hold her accountable for her record.

It's trying to have it both ways; walk the fence, something Senator Clinton's good at. At one minute the strong woman ready to lead, the next, she's the woman under attack, disingenuously playing the victim card as a means of trying to avoid giving honest, direct answers to legitimate questions.

As a woman who's been in the public eye and experienced scrutiny, as a woman who knows how hard it can be for women to earn their seat at the leadership table, how hard women have to work just to get the same opportunities, this distresses me.

It is not presidential.

Any serious candidate for president should have to answer tough questions and defend their record.

If Hillary Clinton is tough enough to withstand the Republican attack machine, she should stop sending out her minions to whine about “piling on” and start giving direct answers to direct questions. 

Republican caucus-goers and primary voters know very little about Rudy Giuliani's record as mayor, other than what they say on tv on 9/11.

However, that fact will change in the coming months, and what people learn about Rudy is unlikely to impress them. Click this link if you dare to learn more about Rudy's longtime connections with Bernie Kerik:

http://www.nytimes.c…

It's a long article, but here is one excerpt:

In December 2004, President Bush nominated Mr. Kerik, a former New York police commissioner, to head the federal Department of Homeland Security. Seven days later, Mr. Kerik withdrew as a nominee.

A cascade of questions followed about his judgment as a public official, not least that he had inappropriately lobbied city officials on behalf of Interstate Industrial, a construction firm suspected of links to organized crime. Mr. Giuliani defended Mr. Kerik, a friend and business partner, whom he had recommended to the Bush administration. But he also tried to shield himself from accusations that he had ignored Mr. Kerik’s failings.

“I was not informed of it,” Mr. Giuliani said then, when asked if he had been warned about Mr. Kerik’s relationship with Interstate before appointing him to the police post in 2000.

Mr. Giuliani amended that statement last year in testimony to a state grand jury. He acknowledged that the city investigations commissioner, Edward J. Kuriansky, had told him that he had been briefed at least once. The former mayor said, though, that neither he nor any of his aides could recall being briefed about Mr. Kerik’s involvement with the company.

But a review of Mr. Kuriansky’s diaries, and investigators’ notes from a 2004 interview with him, now indicate that such a session indeed took place. What is more, Mr. Kuriansky also recalled briefing one of Mr. Giuliani’s closest aides, Dennison Young Jr., about Mr. Kerik’s entanglements with the company just days before the police appointment, according to the diaries he compiled at the time and his later recollection to the investigators.

The additional evidence raises questions not only about the precision of Mr. Giuliani’s recollection, but also about how a man who proclaims his ability to pick leaders came to overlook a jumble of disturbing information about Mr. Kerik, even as he pushed him for two crucial government positions.

[…]

In Mr. Kerik’s case, by the time Mr. Giuliani recommended him for the federal job, his administration knew that Mr. Kerik had acted on behalf of Interstate Industrial. It also knew that he had drawn criticism for a range of other incidents, from sending detectives to search for his lover’s cellphone to using officers to research his autobiography.

Mr. Kerik, who declined to speak about his troubles, now faces possible indictment on a range of federal felony charges, including perhaps tax evasion and bribery, stemming in part from his acceptance of $165,000 in renovations to his Bronx apartment paid for by Interstate. In June 2006, he pleaded guilty in the Bronx to state misdemeanor charges relating to the same renovations.

At some point this has to become an issue in the GOP primaries.

The Edwards campaign went up on the air in Iowa yesterday with this ad: 

My favorite portion: “It is time for our party, the Democratic Party, to show a little backbone, to have a little guts, to stand up for working men and women. If we are not their voice, they will never have a voice.”

I couldn't agree more.

Also this week, Edwards sent out a 12-page mailer to Iowa Democrats. If you live in Iowa, you may have received it already. If not, you can find the jpegs here:

http://www.politico….

If you don't care about the photos and just want to read the text, I wrote that up here:

http://www.mydd.com/…

The mailer lays out Edwards' biography, but also talks more specifically about issues than the tv ad does. I assume that in the next four to six weeks, Edwards will release tv ads that talk briefly about his stands on the key issues. 

originally posted at Daily Kos

Reading articles about John Edwards, I have noticed the perception that his domestic policy ideas are mainly good for poor people, while other candidates are focusing more on middle-class issues.

David Mizner wrote an excellent diary last Tuesday: “What Edwards is About.” (If you missed it, click here or here–it sparked a lively discussion.) David points out that Edwards has done the most by far to call attention to growing social and economic inequality in the United States. I encourage everyone to check out his plans to reduce poverty in this country and globally.

While I agree that Edwards is the candidate who would accomplish the most for the least fortunate, I want to call your attention to his proposals that would benefit middle-class Americans. 

More after the jump. 

I taped the debate and haven't watched yet.

What do you think? Consensus at MyDD seems to be that it wasn't Hillary's best night by a longshot.

As you can read in sirius's diary on the right (the Edwards Evening News), John Edwards has now campaigned in all 99 counties in Iowa. Last cycle Howard Dean did that during the spring, summer and fall, but Edwards didn't get to his 99th county until December 2003.

In general, Democratic presidential candidates have spent far more time in Iowa this year than Republicans, as the Register pointed out several days ago in this interesting piece:

http://www.desmoines…

Some highlights from the piece:

John Edwards and Barack Obama each has more staff in Iowa than all of the Republican caucus campaigns combined, with Hillary Clinton close behind.

Even the Democratic field's lesser-known candidates have built caucus organizations several times the size of some of the best-known Republicans' operations, according to a review of several criteria by The Des Moines Register.

Since that article came out, I heard that Hillary plans to double her paid staff in Iowa, so that she will have more than 200 paid staff. The Register reported that Hillary has 117 paid staff in Iowa, Obama has 145 paid staff here, and Edwards has 130. 

As for days spent in Iowa, surprisingly Joe Biden has the most, followed by Obama and Edwards, with Dodd, Clinton and Richardson not far behind. 

We've long known that Sam Brownback was not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but his possible endorsement of Rudy Giuliani would be one of the dumbest things I can imagine him doing.

Haven't seen anything on this yet at Cyclone Conservatives or The Real Sporer blog, but the gang at TPM has been all over the story:

Brownback said a few days ago that he has become “much more comfortable” with Rudy after getting assurances from Giuliani that he would appoint only “strict constructionist” judges:

http://tpmelectionce…

Brownback's former political director in Iowa says Sam may endorse Rudy as the candidate with the best chance to beat Hillary:

http://tpmelectionce…

The Family Research Council is very upset and says conservatives will desert the GOP if Rudy is the nominee:

http://tpmelectionce…

Endorsing Giuliani would be a really dumb move by Brownback. He campaigned as the guy with consistently pro-life views, and had support from many social conservatives, especially Catholics. To turn around and back Rudy is a slap in the face to them.

Presumably Brownback is angling for a position in Rudy's cabinet, or even the VP slot, by toying with an early endorsement. But let's get real. Are GOP primary voters going to nominate Rudy after seeing the ads his rivals will run against him? I know Fox News is in the tank for Rudy (he and Roger Ailes go way back), but they won't be able to save him from the ads showing Rudy calling himself the “liberal” mayor of New York, ads showing Rudy in drag, ads showing Rudy talk about being pro-choice and supporting state funding for abortion.

Not to mention the fact that Bernard Kerik is about to go on trial on federal charges–this is the guy Rudy pushed Bush to appoint as Homeland Security secretary. Great judgment there!

And who will be the first of Rudy's opponents to run this ad? When Rudy was appointed to the Iraq Study Group (also known as the Baker-Hamilton commission), he never bothered to show up for a single meeting. He was too busy giving $100,000 speeches to cash in on his 9/11 celebrity.

Romney, McCain and Thompson are not just going to hand this nomination to Rudy. They will fight him for it. 

And even if Rudy could get the nomination, I think he is far from the GOP's best candidate against Hillary. As I have written, Mike Huckabee is the one we need to be worried about–especially if Hillary is our nominee.

There are two obvious plays for Brownback. The safest one is not to endorse at all. The risky one would be to endorse Huckabee. He's a longshot who lacks money and faces the wrath of the Club for Growth. But at least endorsing him would show some principle and would upset social conservatives less than endorsing Rudy.

We'll see what Brownback is made of. 

Chase Martyn has the story:

http://www.iowaindep…

The leadership of the Iowa Democratic Party will recommend scheduling the caucuses for January 3, the same night as the Republican caucuses.

On the one hand, this reduces the potential for mischief as Republicans will not be able to switch parties en masse in order to influence the outcome on our side.

On the other hand, logistically this will be a nightmare. It will be hard to do last-minute voter contacts, and parking will be in short supply at sites likely to be used by both parties on caucus night (such as schools). How many people want to walk several blocks on a cold, dark night to caucus?

Turnout is likely to be lower as the holiday season burns people out and makes GOTV difficult. 

Chase writes:

• No colleges or universities will have ended their winter breaks by this date.  Conventional wisdom is that this will make Sen. Barack Obama's campaign to organize students difficult, but the payoffs of a good student organization will be larger if students are spread out across multiple cities rather than concentrated in a few big precincts.
• This is only three days into the New Year.  Some Iowans will be out of town for the week, and many others will be just returning to town.
• This date is less than two weeks after Christmas.  The final two weeks of the caucus season are often filled with wall-to-wall television ads, some of which are negative.  How Iowans will react to attack ads on Christmas is unknown.  Candidates also typically leave a few days around the holidays to stop bothering caucus-goers with phone calls and public appearances, but that may not be possible with this schedule.
• Moving up the caucus date may benefit Sen. John Edwards, who will not have to stretch his money in Iowa for an additional two weeks.

I could make a case for any of the major contenders benefiting from this date. Hillary could benefit if more men than women stay home to watch the college football championship game on January 3.

I read today that Obama's people believe they will benefit from the fact that Iowa is a “net exporter” of college students. Many native Iowans who attend schools in other states will still be home with their parents on January 3 and will be able to help Obama reach the viability threshold in a larger number of precincts. That is an interesting theory.

I would think that Edwards would benefit from a date that would weed out all but the most politically engaged Iowans. If you are a general-election voter who normally skips primaries, I really think you're not going to caucus for the first time in your life on January 3. People just want to stay in after the holiday season.

Also, if Edwards wins Iowa, he will have a few more days of media attention and time to parlay that into gains in New Hampshire. 

The big question in my mind is this: given that phone-banking and door-knocking during the holiday season is likely to irritate people, will this early date neutralize the organizational advantages that the major campaigns have? All of those field offices and the army of volunteers will pretty much have their hands tied during the last ten days of December, with no time to contact many people after New Year's.

Will the candidates with stronger organizations benefit more from the GOTV they were able to do in November and early December? Or will they have less opportunity to use their organizations to turn out the leaners they need?

What do you think? 

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. 

David Yepsen's latest column in the Thursday Des Moines Register contains this passage:

http://desmoinesregi…

For example, it's amazing to hear women complain about this or that with Clinton. She's too liberal, not liberal enough, should have left Bill or should or shouldn't wear pantsuits. The sniping, snarky comments about her from other women remind me of listening to my daughter and her friends back in middle school say catty things about one another. Don't forget it was a woman reporter for the Washington Post who treated us to a discussion of Clinton's cleavage.

Apparently men are allowed to have unfavorable opinions about candidates, but if women say something critical of Hillary, it's “sniping” and “snarky.”

There's a big difference between women complaining that Hillary is “too liberal” or “not liberal enough” and women talking about her cleavage or pantsuits.

I think Hillary would be a weak general-election candidate and not as good a president as several others in our field might be. I do not believe that she shares my domestic-policy priorities, I think she would be weak on environmental issues, I think she would be too slow to withdraw troops from Iraq, and I think she is too close to the corporate interests that try to frustrate progressive change in a number of areas.

Does that make me “catty” like his daughter in junior high school?

Does Yepsen really think that men don't make “sniping” remarks about candidates they do not support?

Some women on the Register editorial board might want to teach Yepsen the difference between substantive and superficial criticism of Hillary. Because the way his column reads, it sounds like women who don't shut up and get behind Hillary are just immature. 

I'll be honest, I haven't had a chance to read the whole thing yet. But you can see the highlights here:

http://www.joebiden….

Skimming the plan, it appears that Biden would not make health insurance mandatory, so this is not quite a universal health care plan (as Edwards and Clinton have proposed).

Under Biden's plan, all children would be covered, and steps would be taken to improve adults' access to health insurance, including a Federal Employee Health Benefit Buy-In and a Medicare Buy-In for adults age 55 to 64.

This seems most similar to Obama's health care proposal, which also would put us on the road toward covering all children and more adults. 

I like that the consensus Democratic position has moved much further toward universal health care reform than we were a few years ago. 

Also, all of the Democratic candidates are supporting common-sense policies like letting Medicare negotiate for lower drug prices. 

What do you think? 

Howard Fineman has a story up saying AFSCME will endorse Hillary Clinton next week:

http://www.msnbc.msn…

I’m told by labor sources that the endorsement will come next Thursday after a series of AFSCME committee meetings. The union, whose members by definition are no strangers to politics, has 30,000 members in the crucial caucus state of Iowa, plus 90,000 in Michigan and 110,000 in Florida – two other “early” states in the nomination process. 

And so the Clinton Family Machine grinds on.  The president of AFSCME, Gerald McEntee, goes back a long way with the Clintons, to the early stages of the 1992 presidential campaign. McEntee took a flier on a then-obscure governor of Arkansas. The AFSCME endorsement provided Bill Clinton with an important early foothold in a labor movement that had doubts about him. Not surprisingly, McEntee became a White House favorite.

Fineman claims that Bill personally lobbied McEntee and had a lot to do with this endorsement.

Clearly any Democrat would love to get the AFSCME endorsement, and I'd be lying if I said I think it's irrelevant. Yet the largest union in Iowa's recent track record (Dean, Blouin) doesn't suggest that its foot soldiers can deliver the goods.

On Labor Day two women who are very involved in AFSCME in Iowa told me that there was strong support for Edwards and Obama as well as for Hillary within the union's ranks.

It will be interesting to see how much AFSCME is able to add to Hillary's ground game here.

Anyone out there know more about the inner workings of AFSCME in Iowa? How helpful do you think this endorsement will be?

Over at his blog, Iowa True Blue, Gordon Fischer (who has endorsed Obama) raises an important point:

http://www.iowatrueb…  

I think the Clinton campaign's answer is easy to predict, based on comments I see frequently from Clinton supporters at MyDD and Daily Kos.

Iowa is “lily-white” and “not representative” of the whole country. Also, Iowans are sexist (never having sent a woman to Congress).

Of course, Iowa Democrats, who will be attending the Democratic caucuses, are not sexist. We have nominated two women for governor and many other women to statewide positions or Congressional seats.

And while Iowa is largely white, it is socio-economically a fairly “average” state, and in that sense more representative than New Hampshire. 

But that won't stop the Clinton campaign spin if she does falter in the caucuses.

Anyone else want to take a stab at answering Gordon's question?

Note: this post originally appeared at MyDD, where I write a front-page post in support of John Edwards every Tuesday. Parts of it are aimed at readers who are less familar with Iowa politics than the typical Bleeding Heartland reader.

Although the ten SEIU state chapter endorsements of John Edwards have understandably dominated the recent blogosphere chatter about Edwards, I want to call attention to a different aspect of his campaign. Edwards is on a two-day swing through western and central Iowa, where he is highlighting his policy agenda for small towns and rural areas. When Edwards wins the Iowa caucuses, I believe small-town and rural voters will play as important a role as union members.

Yesterday the Edwards campaign in Iowa announced the formation of a Statewide Rural Advisory Committee. From the campaign website:

The committee consists of a wide group of leaders including first responders, business leaders, elected officials and agricultural leaders. The committee will work with the campaign's 99 Rural County Chairs to advise Edwards on the issues facing rural Iowans and spread his detailed plans to strengthen rural towns and communities across America. Edwards was raised in a small rural town and has made rural revitalization a cornerstone of his campaign. In August, the campaign announced more than 1,000 rural supporters showing Edwards' broad support throughout rural Iowa.

The biggest name on this committee is Denise O'Brien, who endorsed Edwards over the summer and will help him tremendously with progressives as well as rural voters. Denise, an organic farmer and the founder of the Women, Food and Agriculture Network, was the Democratic nominee for secretary of agriculture last year. She shocked Iowa politicos by winning the Democratic primary by a large margin, despite the fact that her opponent, Dusky Terry (a great guy by the way), had the strong backing of Tom Vilsack and virtually the whole Democratic establishment in Iowa.

Denise narrowly lost the general election for secretary of agriculture, but she has many passionate supporters in the Iowa environmentalist community. Environmentalists were a significant factor in John Kerry's caucus victory in Iowa.

But I digress. This post is about rural voters. Most of the people on the Edwards Statewide Rural Advisory Committee may be little-known outside their home counties, but when it comes to turning out caucus-goers, a respected figure from someone's home town is probably even more valuable than a statewide celebrity.

In addition to having a strong team working to turn out rural and small-town voters, Edwards has put forward a solid policy agenda for rural America. You can download his plans on the issues page of his campaign website. Edwards has a deep knowledge of the the issues affecting small-town America, and his current swing through Iowa is focusing on a different aspect of his rural recovery plan at each venue.

His first event yesterday was in Dunlap, Iowa, where he focused on agricultural issues including country-of-origin labeling. He discussed protecting family farms at his next event in Harlan. Later in the day, he held a town hall meeting at a high school in the small town of Exira, where he focused on his plan to strengthen rural schools. (As you probably know, Edwards was educated in rural public schools.)

Edwards' final two events on Tuesday were in Greenfield and Waukee (suburb of Des Moines), where he talked about economic development plans for rural areas, with a focus on main street development and incentives for small business creation. That issue is particularly close to my heart, as both of my grandfathers ran small businesses and I despise so-called economic development plans that are basically just corporate welfare.

Why should you care whether Edwards appeals to rural voters? I mean, besides the fact that his policy ideas are really good?

Well, if you are an Edwards supporter you will be pleased to know that caucus-goers in rural counties punch above their weight when the state delegates are tallied.

But even if Edwards is not your favorite candidate in the primary, you should be aware that a strong showing among rural voters will put many more states into play for our Democratic nominee. ManfromMiddletown made a strong case for this analysis in his diary on electability.

I also refer you to this report from the Center for Rural Strategies:

The rural vote is critical in presidential and congressional elections because large Republican majorities among rural voters have helped overcome Democratic advantages in urban areas. With the rural advantage eroding for the GOP, both parties may look more carefully at the rural vote in the coming elections.

“The rural vote determines presidential elections,” said Dee Davis, president of the nonpartisan Center for Rural Strategies, which sponsors the poll. “Democrats don't win unless they make rural competitive, and Republicans don't win without a large rural victory. So you'd think that would mean the candidates would have a spirited debate on the things that matter to rural Americans, but we haven't heard it yet.”

In the 2004 and especially the 2006 elections, Democrats began to make up ground against the GOP with rural voters. That was a big change from the 1990s, when rural voters swung significantly against the Democratic Party. I believe that John Edwards would be by far the best candidate in our field to continue this trend, which would hurt the GOP badly.

But maybe you don't care about rural voters and are buoyed by opinion polls showing that any of our top Democratic contenders could win a presidential election.

I urge you to consider this: the presidential election is more than 50 statewide elections. It also coincides with 435 House races and thousands of races for the state legislature.

As we know, gerrymandering has helped the GOP control more U.S. House seats than they deserve in states such as Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Florida. Too many Democrats in those states are packed into House districts that send Democrats to Congress with super-majorities. Consequently, many of the House seats we are trying to pick up contain significant numbers of rural and small-town voters.

What that means is that even if any of our candidates could win Ohio (or Pennsylvania, or Michigan, or Florida) in a presidential election, we have a better chance of winning more House seats if our candidate at the top of the ticket is appealing to the rural electorate. Holding down the GOP margin with these voters will bring big gains down-ticket.

The same goes for state legislative districts. If we want to improve our position in state legislatures going into the 2010 census and redistricting process, it will help to have a presidential candidate in 2008 and a president in 2010 who does not alienate rural voters.

All these factors reinforce my belief that John Edwards would be the best general-election candidate in our very strong Democratic field.

I read over at MyDD that the Iowa chapter of the SEIU is going to endorse John Edwards this Monday afternoon. The diarist also said the California SEIU will endorse Edwards, although that seems less clear from the link:

http://www.mydd.com/…

I don't know how many members SEIU has in Iowa. Clearly it's not the major player that AFSCME is. Still, the endorsement will be welcomed, especially if the NH and CA chapters follow through.

In the comments below the MyDD diary, people are debating whether the California chapter of SEIU would be able to send people to help the Edwards campaign in Iowa, even in the absence of a national SEIU endorsement.

In other news, Tracy Joan of the Edwards campaign put this link up at MyDD's Breaking Blue, in response to the claim that Edwards “lives” in Iowa:

http://www.swamppoli…

If you click through, you will learn that surprisingly, Obama has spent almost as many days campaigning in Iowa this year as Edwards, and Clinton is not far behind.

For those of you who can attend lunchtime events in central Iowa:

Join Us for an Unprecedented Bipartisan Summit in Pursuit of a New Way Forward

On Friday, October 12th, Republican presidential candidate Senator Sam Brownback and Democratic presidential candidate Senator Joe Biden will hold an unprecedented joint campaign event to discuss their bipartisan plan for Iraq. The event is hosted by the Greater Des Moines Committee on Foreign Relations.

WHEN: Friday, October 12
12:00 PM to 1:00 PM

WHAT: Biden, Brownback to Outline Iraq Plan

WHERE: Wakonda Country Club
1400 Park Avenue
Des Moines, IA 50315

Details:
This event is open to the public (lunch provided for $25.00). For more information and reservations, contact the Greater Des Moines Committee on Foreign Relations at 515-282-8192.

I understand what Biden is trying to do here–as he has said in many debates, he has a plan for Iraq, and he has experience getting Republicans in Congress to support his agenda.

But this really annoys me. Aside from the fact that I think any partition plan is doomed to fail, Biden is throwing Senate Republicans a life raft. Now they can credibly say that they have voted for a solution to the Iraq problem.

The reality is that Republicans in Congress are still carrying water for the Bush administration on Iraq and everything else, and we need to call them on that. Biden is allowing them to make a show of voting to change course in Iraq, when we all know that this plan is going nowhere.

“We” being everyone who wants to derail the Hillary inevitability train.

Clinton supporters are crowing about the latest Des Moines Register poll showing her leading likely Democratic voters in Iowa with 29 percent to 23 percent for Edwards, 22 percent for Obama, 8 percent for Richardson and 5 percent for Biden.

Here is the link for the poll:

http://www.desmoines…

Hillary has to be happy not just about her overall lead, but also her lead among voters over 65 and her big lead among women.

It's not good news for the other candidates, but it would be a mistake to say Hillary is going to cruise in Iowa. I think she is going to lose delegates when people go to their second choices on caucus night.

Edwards has dropped since May, but he hasn't been up on the air, while all of the other major candidates have blanketed the airwaves for two months or more. Despite that, he still leads among men and middle-aged Iowa voters. He is building a strong organization to identify and turn out supporters. I totally disagree with those who say he has no room to grow his support in Iowa.

Obama is holding steady. If he were my first choice, I'd be worried about the fact that he trails badly among older voters and does best among groups that are relatively unlikely to caucus (under 45 or independent). Clearly Obama needs to turn out record numbers of independents and first-time caucus-goers if he is going to win Iowa. He will have plenty of boots on the ground, though, so it is too early to count him out. 

Richardson was at 8 percent in this poll, which is not a statistically significant change from the 10 percent he had in May. Clearly, though, he is stuck around the 10 percent mark in IA and NH and is not continuing to gain momentum. He needs to do something to change the dynamic of the race if he wants to break into the top tier in Iowa. He may be tempted to play it safe and try for a cabinet appointment in the event that Hillary wins, though.

All of the candidates need to try to reduce or eliminate Hillary's leads with women and older voters. Individual supporters and precinct captains need to make those voter contacts in their neighborhoods and make the case for alternatives to Hillary. 

What do the rest of you think about the poll? 

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…

This ad is a work of genius:

The Log Cabin Republicans support Rudy Giuliani, but they wisely say nothing of that in this ad.

They created the illusion of a positive ad (without scary music or unflattering still photos), while using clips of Romney that will absolutely annihilate him among the Republican base. Not only does it highlight his past support for Roe v Wade and keeping abortion safe and legal, in mentions his opposition to the NRA and even includes a clip of Romney saying, “I'm not trying to return to Reagan-Bush.”

Like I said, a work of genius. 

Paul Waldman has a rant in the American Prospect, complaining about Iowa's influence on the nominating process. Here is the link:

http://www.prospect….

And here is the key excerpt:

No small group of Americans deserves this power, but if any does, it sure isn't the citizens of Iowa. 

As you read this, some of the most important and powerful people in America are crawling through the Hawkeye State on their knees, pretending to know more than they do about corn, pretending that the deep fried Twinkie they had back at the state fair was just dee-licious, pretending that ethanol is the key to our energy future, and pretending that every precinct captain and PTA chair they meet is the very heart and soul of our nation, whose opinions the candidate is just dying to hear. And the good people of Iowa? They couldn't give a rat's ass.

If this is a typical election, somewhere between 6 and 10 percent of voting-eligible Iowans will bother to show up to a caucus. Yes, you read that right. Those vaunted Iowa voters are so concerned about the issues, so involved in the political process, so serious about their solemn deliberative responsibilities as guardians of the first-in-the-nation contest, that nine out of ten can't manage to haul their butts down to the junior high on caucus night. One might protest that caucusing is hard — it requires hours of time and a complicated sequence of standing in corners, raising hands, and trading votes (here is an explanation of the ridiculousness). But so what? If ten presidential candidates personally came to your house to beg for your vote, wouldn't you set aside an evening when decision time finally came?

But only one in ten Iowans can be bothered. Not only that, despite all the attention, Iowans know barely more about the candidates than citizens of other states, and don't discuss politics any more than anyone else (unless something has changed since this research was conducted in 2000). Yet around 200,000 of them, possessed of no greater wisdom or insight than the rest of us, will determine who presides over this nation of 300 million for the next four years. The problem isn't that Iowans aren't like the rest of the country (95 percent white, for one). The problem is that despite the extraordinary privilege of having the next president grovel before them, they're just as indifferent and apathetic as any other group of Americans.

I am no fan of the caucus system, but I think Waldman is unduly harsh on Iowans. First, Iowa is fairly representative of the U.S. politically, as a state divided roughly evenly that usually goes for the winner of the presidential election.

Second, turnout for the caucuses may be low in Iowa, but I bet that it would be lower for caucuses in any other state that lacks the tradition we have in Iowa. In some ways it's remarkable that so many people do haul themselves out of their homes for more than an hour on a cold winter weeknight.

But the main thing I will say for Iowans is that they give all the candidates a fair hearing. They do not let a few thousand maxed-out donors decide who is worth their attention.

The truth is that the “money primary” has far more malign influence over national media coverage of presidential elections than Iowa does. The Iowa results will influence media coverage for a week or two, but the money primary determines who gets covered nationally for a year or more.

If the national media had had their way, dark horses never would be able to break through to challenge front-runners. But Iowans were willing to listen to Howard Dean, and he started making a move in the polls here in 2003 before his fundraising got the national media's attention. Iowans were willing to give Kerry and Edwards a chance after the national media had written them off.

This year, Iowans are giving their serious consideration to Biden, Dodd and Richardson as well as the front-runners. Even bloggers who follow politics extremely closely are often quick to dismiss longshot candidates as jokes. I appreciate that Iowans who do plan to caucus will often take the time to learn about and listen to all of the candidates in our field.

So Waldman is incorrect to say that Iowans “don't give a rat's ass” about this process. If anything, Iowa caucus-goers take the process more seriously than the average cynical reporter who covers politics for a living. 

I put up the latest installment of this series at Daily Kos and MyDD. The diaries are geared toward people who are unfamiliar with the caucus system, but I would be interested in comments from Bleeding Heartland readers as well.

If you have read earlier installments of this series, you know that I am no fan of the caucus system. Too many people are excluded from participating because of the requirement that citizens show up in person at exactly 6:30 pm on a cold winter night, staying for an hour or more. People must express their preferences in public, creating an opportunity for intimidation by overbearing neighbors or family members. Determining the winner by state delegates can distort the results and put candidates with pockets of deep support at a disadvantage.

This post is about caucus math and how voters' second choices can affect the way raw voter numbers are translated into delegate counts.

If you make it to the end of this long diary, I hope to have convinced you that 1) caucus math can lead to strange outcomes, and 2) neither you nor I can be sure which candidate will benefit most from the way the math works.

More after the jump. 

From City View's Civic Skinny…

Hillary Clinton’s deputy state director and caucus manager Angelique Pirozzi has left the Iowa effort to pursue “other opportunities,” Skinny hears. Pirozzi’s departure comes on the heels of the campaign’s former state director JoDee Winterhof getting demoted in favor of Teresa Vilmain, who consulted for Tom Vilsack’s short-lived presidential campaign. Clinton people tell Skinny that at least a half dozen field organizers — the supposedly smiling faces of the campaign — have also left recently. Skinny isn’t sure what to make of the revolving door.

Winterhof's change in job title puzzled me. Now more people are moving around and leaving will surely cause a few bumps in the road for the campaign in Iowa. The campaign staff that has been on the ground has built key relationships and it will take a new person to establish those relationships again.

To win the Iowa caucuses you must have a strong organization and then hope to get hot at the end. These personal changes can't help Clinton's organization in Iowa in the short term.

I didn't have a chance to watch the forum.

What did you think?

Iowa Independent's liveblog is here:

http://www.iowaindep…

You can also find links to video from the forum at that site.

Noneed4thneed thought it was a great night for Biden and Edwards:

http://commoniowan.b…

Reaction from MyDD readers is here:

http://www.mydd.com/…

I still think it was insane for Obama to skip this one, given that up to two-thirds of caucus-goers may be over 50.

UPDATE: I finally got around to watching the debate. I thought all five candidates did well. As an Edwards supporter, I was very happy with his performance and his ability to make connections: for instance, between strong unions and pensions, between the solvency of Social Security and the need to stop taxing wealth at a much lower rate than work is taxed.

But I imagine that supporters of the other candidates also found much to like in their performances.

The format was also much better than the previous debates (it helped having only five people on stage). Judy Woodruff did a good job of asking direct questions and following up when warranted. 

More like this debate, please! 

Note: I am cross-posting to Bleeding Heartland my latest installment in MyDD's partisan candidate diary series.

I was planning to write this post about my impressions from Tom Harkin's steak fry on Sunday. However, my camera wasn't working for some reason, and there have already been other good diaries covering that event.

So my thoughts turned to words from a different time and place.

Last Thursday I attended my temple's services for Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish new year. As is my habit when the service starts to drag, I began leafing through the front section of the High Holidays prayer book, which contains quotations, legends and meditations on themes relevant to this time of year. You Jewish readers out there may also enjoy reflecting on those parts of the prayer book if you spend long hours at Yom Kippur services. [note: are there any other Jewish readers of Bleeding Heartland?]

One of the snippets that caught my attention contained a quotation attributed to the Baal Shem Tov, the 18th century rabbi who founded the Hasidic Jewish movement. I don't have a link, but I jotted down the relevant portion:

The first time an event occurs in nature it is a miracle; later it comes to seem natural and is taken for granted.

The quote reminded me of something I had recently read in The Atlantic Monthly. That magazine is 150 years old, and to celebrate that milestone editors have been publishing decades-old excerpts on a particular theme in each issue. In the October 2007 issue, the magazine reprints portions of articles about philanthropy, including a piece written by Alice Hamilton for the May 1930 issue:

I must … join with those who stand for state pensions for the aged poor rather than support given through private charity …
[…]

In thinking of old-age pensions we must take into consideration a great new class of needy people. These are not men who have lived all their lives on the edge of poverty; they are self-respecting artisans, skilled workers, men who have made good wages and held their heads high. At a moment when such a man still possesses all his old skill of eye and hand, and the gains of long experience, he finds himself no longer wanted, of less use in our American social system than his little feather-brained daughter with a year’s training in a business school …

It will be harder and harder for him to find any sort of job, even if he dyes his hair and makes pitiful efforts to hide the senility of fifty years … Personally, I am very loath to accept the verdict that a dependence on the benevolence of the uppermost class toward the lowest class is the only possible American way of solving the problem of the poor, or even that it makes for a healthy state and contentment at the bottom of society …

The American workman may earn high wages … but even if he does, he must live all his working life under the shadow of three Damoclean swords: sickness, loss of his job, and old age, and against these our country, the richest in the world, gives him no protection.

Think about that. In 1930 it was not a given that the elderly should receive any kind of state pension. Our country, “the richest in the world,” offered no protection for those who had worked hard their whole adult lives.

Probably there were plenty of naysayers who thought that efforts to adopt a state pension were a pipe dream which would never get through Congress.

Not long after that, Social Security became a reality, and now there are few programs that seem like a more “natural” obligation of our government than that one.

I am no expert on the history of the labor movement, but the activists who were advocating the right to collective bargaining in the late 19th century must have sometimes felt like it would be a miracle for them to ever succeed. It took decades before the right to join a union seemed “natural” even in the manufacturing sector, and we still haven't done enough to strengthen organized labor.

During this presidential campaign, John Edwards has set out very ambitious policy proposals, like his universal health care plan and his plan to end poverty in 30 years. Some journalists and even some progressives have dismissed these proposals as pandering or a waste of time, since Congress would (supposedly) never adopt them.

I think it is important for the Democratic Party's standard-bearer to set the bar high. Let's not become resigned to the idea that it would take a miracle to get a universal health care plan through Congress. Let's accept that our country, “the richest in the world,” has an obligation to provide universal access to health care, and let's debate the best way to get that done.

Let's talk about who has the best combination of ideas to end poverty or bring the United States closer to true energy independence.

Let's work to make the progressive achievements of the next presidency seem as natural decades from now as Social Security seems to us today.

By putting these goals front and center, John Edwards is not only running a strong campaign, he is inspiring his competitors to be better candidates as well. I hope that all Americans will benefit, no matter who ends up winning the Democratic primaries.

Final note: it's a few days late, but for all you Jewish MyDD readers, here is the Rosh Hashanah message released by John Edwards:

“Rosh Hashanah is an occasion for contemplating the past year and considering our future path.  What have we done to make the world a better place?  What can we do to improve ourselves as individuals?  Elizabeth and I will be asking these questions as we wish all those who observe the high holiday a Happy New Year and pray for a year of peace, prosperity and good health for our brothers and sisters.”