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.”

I forgot to set the VCR. From the looks of this thread at MyDD, I didn't miss much:

http://www.mydd.com/…

interesting tidbit here from Todd Beeton, who was watching the post-debate tv coverage:

The participants in Frank Luntz's post-debate focus group of 29 Republicans were unanimous in their disappointment in the candidates. A solid majority was pleasantly surprised by McCain and was most disappointed in Rudy Giuliani. They also called Romney a waffler.

While bloggers were busy overreacting to Bill Richardson's jokes, the governor stated some obvious and important truths about our transportation policy during a campaign stop in Creston on Tuesday.

He makes a lot of good points in the write-up in today's Des Moines Register, so I encourage you to click through and read the whole thing:

The United States’ transportation system is “fixated on highways” and should include more emphasis on energy-efficient modes of travel with planning to ensure preservation of open spaces, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson said here today.

Richardson told about 80 people at Creston’s historic railroad depot that he’s been struck by the massive traffic jams and congestion he’s encountered while visiting as many as three states per day while seeking the Democratic presidential nomination.

The problem, he said, has been caused by poor planning by policy makers who have suffered from an inability to look forward to provide alternatives to driving automobiles.

“What I am seeing right now is all across the country … individuals in cities asking for a more active federal role in not just funding bills to create new highways, but also light rail transportation, commuter rail, and open spaces,” said Richardson, whose campaign talk was periodically interrupted by the rumble of freight trains and a Chicago-bound Amtrak passenger train that rolled past the restored depot.

It's long past time for us to shift some of our transportation dollars away from new road construction.

For more information about transit-oriented development, click here or  click here.

For great analysis of high-speed rail's potential in the U.S. and other aspects of transportation policy, check out some of the diaries posted by BruceMcF at Daily Kos.

I only have time for a quick-hit–head over to Open Left for Chris Bowers' analysis of the state of the race, including new polls from ARG and Time magazine:

http://www.openleft….

Chris has an easy-to-read chart. ARG, which has shown Clinton ahead in Iowa all year, has Clinton 28, Obama 23, Edwards 20, Richardson 13.

Time has Edwards 29, Clinton 24, Obama 22, Richardson 11. 

ARG seems to be polling a broader sample of Iowans, and I think they are polling too many people who have no chance in hell of showing up on caucus night.

That said, anyone would have to agree that it is very tight in Iowa now. If the polls stay like this up until January, no one will have any idea who is going to win. Too much depends on how candidates' support is spread around the state and who leads among second choices.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Joe Biden's campaign has posted the candidate's new tv ad in Iowa, along with Biden's answers from this morning's debate, over at Daily Kos:

http://www.dailykos….

Click over and watch the ad, “Cathedral,” if you haven't seen it yet. I think it will get people talking and looking up that website.

Biden is positioning himself as the candidate with the solution to the Iraq problem. I don't happen to favor his partition proposal, but I think it's good that he is putting the plan out there. Let's debate who has the best plan for getting us out of Iraq quickly and safely.

I taped the debate and will watch later.

If you were watching this morning, what did you think?

Matt Browner-Hamlin has posted the Dodd campaign's debate clock in the diaries section. As usual, Obama gets way more time than anyone else. This has been true in every debate. What's with these moderators?

UPDATE: Nate Willems' take is here:

http://www.mydd.com/…

Iowa Independent has several commentaries on the debate (click the link on the blogroll to the right).

Over at Century of the Common Iowan, Noneed4thneed put up a video clip of David Brooks talking about how Republicans privately can't stand Bush, think he's incompetent, blame him for destroying the party and so on.

I don't doubt that this is true. They were happy to puff up Bush and smear his detractors when his approval ratings were high, but now that he's been below 40 percent for almost two years, he is a little embarrassing. Even the White House has given up on salvaging Bush's presidency (at least that's how I interpret Karl Rove's departure to work on other GOP projects).

So far Republican presidential candidates have mainly criticized the Bush administration on immigration policy. I was expecting some second-tier candidate other than Ron Paul to start calling for bringing our troops home from Iraq (using a soft-racist line like, “We've done all we can for those people”), but that hasn't materialized.

Newt Gingrich, who isn't running yet and probably won't run unless Fred Thompson tanks, is the only Republican besides Paul who has really harsh words for the Bush administration.

Mike Huckabee was on The Colbert Report tonight, and when Stephen asked him his signature question (“George W. Bush: great president, or the greatest president?”), Huckabee said Bush will rank right up there with McKinley and Harding, adding that Bush's presidency “will be a historic moment in time.”

Subtle, and only delivered to Colbert's liberal audience for now.

Is this the start of a new Huckabee strategy to depict Bush as one of our country's more inept presidents, presiding over rampant corruption and inequality?

If so, could this possibly be a winning strategy on the GOP side? Or would it put Huckabee out of the running for VP as well as the top of the ticket?

Or am I reading too much into all of this?

Take the poll and comment, if you like. 

Sen. Hillary Clinton’s campaign will launch their first television ad (called “Invisibles”) in Iowa starting tomorrow, but those of us who like to use the amazing series of tubes known as the internets can see it today…and below:

It isn’t the typical biographical ad that a lot of candidates start off with, but that’s probably a good thing for Clinton considering she’s already pretty well-known and has decent name recognition.

In part, the ad is seeking not to introduce her to Iowans but to re-introduce her as the candidate who will focus on the ordinary Iowans and Americans as president.  It is supposed to be the “more caring” side of Hillary, not the supposedly “politically calculating and manipulative” version that we’ve heard about in the press since about 1991.  And in that endeavor, it succeeds.

To me, the one place that it does fail is with the background music.  I’m sorry, but it just seems cheesy and distracting.  The content of the ad, what Clinton says, is the real substance and I think it is quite good for a re-introduction.  However, she’s getting on TV late in the game.  Edwards, Dodd, Richardson, and Obama have already been on the air with introductions, bios, and ads talking about policy.  Clinton’s next step has got to be a policy ad.

All in all, it is a good ad that serves its purpose.  As the big money candidate, one might’ve expected something over-the-top and really professional looking…almost to a level that screams “I’m the typical politician and run those kind of TV ads.” But it was simple and concise and should resonate with Iowans.

And if she expects to build any more traction with committed activists and Democrats who will turn out in force on caucus day, she’ll have to start airing an ad about Iraq.  I predict the campaign isn’t looking forward to that day but with a clear, concise ad advocating ending the war and bringing the troops home will do wonders with those who don’t take the time to get out there and really see her on the stump.

I've long agreed with Kos that Mike Huckabee is the guy in the Republican field I'd least like to see us face in the general. Probably thanks to his experience as a pastor, he connects well with people both in person and on television. He doesn't have the baggage of the Republicans in Congress (voting in lockstep with Bush on Iraq and everything else). He has that inspiring personal story about overcoming obesity, a non-partisan issue that is salient for millions of Americans. He has executive experience. Particularly against Hillary, I think Huckabee spells trouble for us.

That said, I am not sure whether Huckabee's surprisingly strong showing in the Iowa GOP straw poll is good or bad for Democrats.

As you probably know, Huckabee finished second with 2,587 votes, or about 18 percent of the total cast in Ames. I think most of us would agree with Don at Cyclone Conservatives, who called Huckabee the big winner of the day.

His campaign spent about $150,000 on the event, including about 1,850 tickets they purchased for supporters. The group Americans for Fair Taxation claimed credit for Huckabee's strong showing; they spent about as much as the Huckabee campaign on the straw poll and bused about 1,500 people to the event (including about 500 who could vote).

Asked by Iowa Independent what helped Huckabee in Ames, his campaign manager Chip Saltsman said, “We talked a lot about the fair tax.”

In the comments section below that Iowa Independent story, Polk County Republican Party chairman Ted Sporer agreed:

Huckabee's committment to the Fair Tax is one of the reasons he is surging in our primaries because it is a specific tangible policy that addresses a specific policy itch in the Republican shoe, a dislike of hte convoluted tax code.

This is a mainstream R issue and Huckabee has found a simple and attractive way to address the issue and to stand for something tangible. 

Words matter.

Huckabee only edged out Sam Brownback (who, like Mitt Romney opposes the fair tax proposal) by about 400 votes. Take away those Iowans bused in by Americans for Fair Taxation and you'd have a very different story coming out of Ames.

What interests me most about Huckabee's showing is that he did it despite attack ads that the Club for Growth has been running against him on Iowa television stations. Presumably, they were trying to take him out of the running before the straw poll, and they clearly failed miserably.

Political insiders and junkies have known for a long time that the Club for Growth hates Huckabee, but their very public spanking of him (comparing his record as a tax-raising governor to Bill Clinton) seems to have prompted Huckabee to ratchet up his rhetoric against the business wing of the GOP.

Check out this clip from Hardball last week (hat tip to noneed4thneed).

I've watched it several times, and I still can't believe that a Republican went on tv accusing others of letting the GOP become “a wholly-owned subsidiary of Wall Street and the corporations” that have let workers make money for their companies and then end up in the poorhouse. 

Huckabee says it's unacceptable for CEOs to make 500 times the salary of their workers and get huge bonuses while they drive their companies into bankruptcy. He talks about coming from a working class family and how he remembers his dad struggling.

I mean, does he sound like he's channeling John Edwards, or what? No wonder the Club for Growth hates this guy.

Now, I repeat that I would not want to face Huckabee in the general. He would excite the GOP religious base and not come across as too objectionable to independents. He is a social conservative, but he comes across as less scary than, say, Brownback.

But when I think about Huckabee making the top tier, getting more mainstream media coverage while portraying the GOP as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Wall Street and big business, I smile.

Having a Republican reinforce this stereotype will reach many voters who would tune out a Democrat making similar allegations.

You know how the liberal blogosphere goes nuts whenever a prominent Democrat lends support to a right-wing frame about Democrats? Like, when someone like Barack Obama says that all too often Democrats have seemed hostile to mentioning religion in public?

Well, think how mad the other Republicans will be if Huckabee keeps carrying the “GOP in bed with big business” frame to the mass public. What has he got to lose? The Club for Growth is attacking him anyway. There are a decent number of working class or struggling middle class Republicans who will probably like his populist message. 

I've always felt that part of the Republicans' success is that they don't campaign against each other by repeating negative stereotypes about the party. You don't hear them saying, “I'm not like all those other Republicans who just carry water for big business and screw the little guy.”

Huckabee just may be about to prove me wrong.

And if the Club for Growth and other candidates do crush his candidacy, it will only demonstrate the fact that business interests really do get their way with today's GOP.

The big risk for Democrats, of course, is that if Huckabee catches fire and manages to win the nomination, we'll have a much harder time making an “economic fairness” case against him.  

What do the rest of you think? 

Just back from the press conference at IDP Headquarters with Gov. Chet Culver, Secretary of State Mike Mauro, and IDP Chair Scott Brennan.  Culver made sure to emphasize that Iowa Democrats were still planning for January 14th precinct caucuses, but admitted the situation is and remains fluid, with a lot running on New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner’s decision when to hold his state’s primary, which by state law must happen seven days before any other primary.  Iowa state law says that Iowa’s caucuses must occur eight days before any other state selection process.

Culver started out the conference by announcing to Iowans that Christmas is going to happen in this state and that he expects to have the caucuses on January 14th.  Culver also said:

“We’re confident that work with our friends in New Hampshire, the Iowa Democratic Party, and the Democratic National Committee that Iowa is going to hold the lead-off caucus here.”

Obviously the situation is fluid, but nothing has changed the dates between Iowa and New Hampshire.  Until New Hampshire makes a change, we’re scheduled for January 14th.  We’re not interested in going in December.”

That appears to backtrack a bit from statements Culver made on Wednesday before Kay Henderson and other reporters when the rumors first began emerging that the South Carolina GOP would move their state primary to Jan. 19th, three days before New Hampshire’s scheduled (by the DNC) Jan. 22 primary.  Here’s what Culver said then:

“Would it be odd, having the Caucuses before Christmas?

“It’s challenging to get the Caucuses done period.  It requires a lot of work but I do know that Iowans are excited about participating in this presidential selection process and I don’t think as long as we give appropriate notice in timing that the date matters a whole lot.  We just need to get it set and hopefully, it’ll be the 14th.  If not, we’ll do what we have to do to keep the state first,” Culver said.”

Clearly, in the exchange with Henderson and others Culver indicated a preference and emphasis on the Jan. 14th date but by saying that date didn’t matter a whole lot.  The remarks above prompted Chase Martyn to call Culver out on his blog.

Yesterday Culver’s office issued a statement clarifying his support for the January date and today’s conference seemed to be a clear indication that he’s stepping aside — to some degree — to let the state Democratic party handle the matter, as is their prerogative and obligation.  As Secretary of State Mauro said today, the parties are the ones who control the caucuses, not the state government or the secretary of state’s office, as they do with regular elections.

A few other tid-bits from the presser.  Chairman Brennan did say he had been in touch with the Republican Party of Iowa about the situation, but said they were — as expected — a bit more focused on the Ames straw poll fundraiser tomorrow.  He also put the onus on New Hampshire in terms of defining how the Iowa Caucuses could play out with the Democrats and Republicans holding their caucuses on separate nights, as had been the tradition before 1980.  David Yepsen was the one who posed the question to Brennan and he said:

“New Hampshire will drive that.”

He emphasized that the tradition was to have the caucuses on the same nights, but there was no overall commitment to caucuses on the same nights if push came to shove.  That could make the caucuses even more of a spectacle with Democrats and Republicans crossing over into the opposite parties’ caucuses to pick the weaker or ‘crazier’ nominee.

Finally, the highlight of the conference for myself and Patrick Stansberry from Common Iowan, was a question from a reporter for WHO Radio asking if Culver “blamed the blogosphere for the speculation that Iowa’s caucuses might take place in December?”

Culver’s response was “Not at all.”  Thanks, Governor. 🙂

Take a minute to click over to Iowa Independent, where T.M. Lindsey has live-blogged the Ron Paul rally in Cedar Rapids. It's a good read.

I've been saying for months that Ron Paul is not going to get major traction among GOP primary voters. It's not that Republicans aren't sick of the war–they are. But the diehard Republicans who think “we've done all we can for those people,” and it's time to bring the troops home, will never admit Bush made a mistake in taking us into Iraq. And that is why Paul will never be able to reach them.

Also, I think true libertarians are scarce in the GOP these days. But maybe I am wrong. He certainly seems to have a buzz surrounding his campaign, and he is the most coherent of the bunch in the televised debates.

Lest any of you think this is proof that Paul is a “liberal” or would be more at home in the Democratic Party, I refer you to this good set of diaries by “phenry” over at Daily Kos:

http://www.dailykos….“>Ron Paul, In His Own Words.

http://www.dailykos….“>Ron Paul: The Radical Right's Man in Washington.

http://www.dailykos….“>Ron Paul: Dude is Wack.

http://www.dailykos….“>Ron Paul Hates You.

So what do you all think about Ron Paul and his potential in Iowa?

With this post I’m likely to become a fairly unpopular member of the liberal blogosphere, or at least the segment of bloggers like Markos who take pride in bashing Iowa’s first-in-the-nation status.  But as I wrote about on Bleeding Heartland yesterday and today on Political Forecast, the South Carolina GOP’s decision to move up their primary has created huge problems in the national calendar for selecting a nominee for president–and this is the case in both parties.

Carrie Giddins, the IDP’s Communications Director, released this statement earlier today:

“The South Carolina Republicans won’t dictate what Iowa does. The Iowa Democratic Party, our Chairman and our State Central Committee, will make a decision regarding the date of our caucuses with Governor Chet Culver, Senator Tom Harkin and other political leaders that protects Iowa’s interests.

The Iowa Caucuses are scheduled for January 14th, 2008 and we are moving forward with plans for that date.

Iowa will hold the first in the nation caucuses.”

Carrie’s pretty direct, and having met with her before, she’s serious when she says that Iowa will hold the nation’s first caucus.  And I’ve got no doubt that she and others inside the Iowa Democratic Party are pissed with Katon Dawson and South Carolina Republicans.  I’m sure folks at the Republican Party of Iowa are just as pissed as well.

To the best of my knowledge, on August 25th the DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee will be meeting in Washington, DC, and will be debating whether or not to penalize Florida Democrats because of the decision by the Florida legislature to move their primary from February 5th to January 29th.  The penalty Florida faces is basically a preliminary wrist-slap that says “we won’t seat your delegates at the DNC Convention next August.”  The thing is, whomever has the nomination is going to demand Florida’s delegates be seated–for all practical purposes the nominee trumps the existing DNC chair and will dictate from that point on what will happen.

However, last August the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee hammered out their new rules which would again penalize state parties as mentioned above, but also penalize candidates who campaigned in early states.  From the DNC website:

“There is a new rule that imposes new sanctions on presidential candidates. If a state, any state, violates the rule on timing/the window, presidential candidates will face sanctions if they campaign in that state. Examples of campaigning include: making personal appearances in the state, hiring campaign workers, and buying advertising and so on.

Currently, the only punishment for states that violate the window was on State Parties. This new enforcement provision recognizes that presidential candidates must also bear a responsibility in enforcing the window or face sanctions.”

The window the DNC is talking about is that on or after February 5th, every other state besides Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina could hold their state’s caucus or primary (effectively declaring that Tuesday to be the official “Super Tuesday”).

So what I’m looking for on August 25th in DC is for Iowa’s Democratic representative on the Rules and Bylaws Committee, First Vice Chair Sarah Swisher, to stand up and demand that Florida get their slap on the wrist as well as get a statement from the committee reaffirming its commitment that should any candidate campaign in Florida that they should be penalized.

As the New York Times reported after the new rules were passed:

“The sanctions will be directed at candidates who campaign in any state that refuses to follow a 2008 calendar of primaries and caucuses that was also approved Saturday. Any candidate who campaigns in a state that does not abide by the new calendar will be stripped at the party convention of delegates won in that state.”

Coincidently enough, even if Iowa is forced to move our caucus date before the DNC scheduled date of January 14th, we’re still safe from sanctions because Iowa Democrats don’t actually select delegates to the DNC National Convention until the late spring or summer state convention.

So, essentially, Iowa can’t be punished for responding to Florida and the South Carolina GOP’s moves, but we should ask for strong punishments and statements from the DNC reaffirming Iowa’s position as first in the nation, at least for this cycle.

We’ve had a tried and true method that has worked and framed the start of the presidential campaign season for thirty years.  We must act to protect this tradition–and Iowa Democrats should expect the IDP and its leadership to fight hard for our status.

And as a quick note, if any of my dates or information are factually wrong, please let me know in the comments as soon as possible.

UPDATE (6:44 PM Central Time): So here’s the deal.  A December caucus date is seeming a bit less likely.  At least that’s according to the calculations that Chris Bowers over at Open Left has provided to readers.  His calendar shapes out like this:

• Friday, January 4th: Iowa caucuses
• Saturday, January 12th: New Hampshire primary
Saturday, January 19th: Nevada Democratic caucus, South Carolina Republican primary
• Tuesday, January 29th: Florida primary, South Carolina Democratic primary
• Tuesday, February 5th: Super Tuesday

His reasoning, again, is here and worth a read.

And one more thing.  Gov. Culver talked with Kay Henderson and others today emphasizing his support for Iowa as first-in-the-nation state.  And he says that Iowa will be first, no matter what.

– – – – – – – – – –

Oh holy hell.  I really wish I could confirm with any ease the exact date of the Iowa Caucuses but it seems likely not to count on January 14th, 2008, anymore.

First, I’ll let you read what my friend John Deeth reported: That the South Carolina GOP Chair will announce in New Hampshire that he’s moving his primary date earlier than their scheduled February 2nd, 2008, primary.

Now, according to Marc Ambinder and others, it looks like the South Carolina GOP will announce in NH that they’re moving their primary to January 19th, a full three days before the NH primary.  By announcing the move in NH, it seems likely that the NH Secretary of State will move his state’s primary up to Monday, January 7th, or Tuesday, January 9th.  That would almost guarantee an Iowa Caucus date in December of 2007, unless both the IDP and the RPI decide to hold the Iowa Caucuses on Friday, January 4th.  That doesn’t seem likely as its right after the new year.

Other complications still exist.  On August 25th, the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee will meet to decide whether or not to sanction Florida Democrats because their state’s primary is now on January 29th (thanks to a Republican Florida legislature and governor).  Florida Democrats are seeking an exemption, but it is likely that Iowa Democrats will fight hard for sanctions to Florida’s delegation to the Democratic National Convention next summer in Denver.  The outcome of the Rules and Bylaws meeting is still quite up in the air.

Also, South Carolina Democrats are still planning their primary for January 29th, which means they’ll still actually be on schedule.

Michigan is still considering moving its primary to January 29th as well, but Gov. Jennifer Granholm is facing pressure not to sign a bill that would move the primary earlier (but also faces pressure from in-state Democrats like Sen. Carl Levin to move the date earlier–as a sidenote, Levin is crybaby who is just pissed that Nevada and South Carolina were the states that the DNC picked to insert into the IA-NH domination).

Summary: If you’re planning to caucus, keep the months of December and January open.

And if you want to keep track of the best news on the primary/caucus schedule, try Ballot Access News.

The folks over at IowaPolitics.com have launched another contest to reach out to online readers and bloggers with their Ames Straw Poll Contest.

Mike Schramm, the news editor at IowaPolitics.com, says “Whoever guesses closest to the actual finishing order wins a free year of our subscription service.”  To be honest, I’m not a subscriber to their service but I know some folks who are subscribers and appreciate the work they do.

Anyway, entries need to be submitted by Friday afternoon (because Saturday is the actual straw poll).  So go fill out the form and take a chance!

And yes, I realize that we’re all mostly Democrats and progressives here but this is at least a good way to have some fun and test your Republican political prowess.

Just heard about this from the Richardson campaign:

Governor Bill Richardson will announce his, new national healthcare plan in a speech at the Iowa Professional Firefighters-Local 15 Hall in Council Bluffs, Iowa tomorrow [Tuesday] at 1:30 PM.

WHEN: 1:30 PM (Central Time)
WHAT: Speech on Universal Healthcare Plan
WHERE: Iowa Professional Firefighters-Local 15, 1827 South 8th St, Council Bluffs, IA

I look forward to hearing more details about Richardson's health care plan and how he would pay for it, in light of his support for a balanced budget constitutional amendment and his promises not to raise taxes. 

Who had the bright idea of scheduling a televised debate at 8 am on a Sunday?

I didn't even remember to set the VCR. Maybe they'll broadcast it again tonight.

Anyone watch the GOP crowd today? What did you think? 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Links are here:

http://www.mydd.com/…

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

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

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

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

To my knowledge, this is the first Iowa caucus poll by Washington Post/ABC. They found:

Obama 27 percent

Clinton 26

Edwards 26

Richardson 11

Biden 2

Kucinich 2

Dodd 1

The link is here:

http://www.washingto…

Not surprisingly, Obama does best among younger voters, but most caucus-goers are likely to be older:

Obama's hope for winning in Iowa appears to depend heavily on his ability to turn younger voters out on caucus night. Iowa's caucus process demands far more of voters than do presidential primaries. Participants must spend several hours at a caucus, and there are no secret ballots. All voting is done in public.

Among Iowa voters younger than 45, Obama has the advantage — 39 percent, compared with 24 percent for Clinton and 22 percent for Edwards. Among those age 45 and older, Clinton and Edwards were tied at 28 percent, with Obama trailing at 18 percent. Four years ago, these older-than-45 voters made up two-thirds of all caucus participants.

In this poll, 31 percent of likely caucus-goers said the upcoming caucuses will be their first. Half of those younger than 45 said this would be their first time out. Converting interest into commitment among younger voters is one big challenge facing Obama's team.

If Obama can mobilize tens of thousands of new voters to come out and caucus, more power to him. I'd love to see that. My hunch is that many precincts just don't have a lot of Democrats under age 45, though.

Recent Iowa polls have been all over the map, which confirms that it's tough to poll the caucuses. My advice to everyone is ignore the polls and work your heart out to GOTV for your favorite candidate.

ARG, which has shown Clinton leading in Iowa all year, released a new poll today with similar findings. Details and a spirited discussion of this poll can be found over at MyDD. Here are the key findings:

Clinton 30 (down from 32 in last ARG poll)

Edwards 21 (down from 29 in last ARG poll)

Obama 15 (up from 13 in last ARG poll)

Richardson 13 (up from 5 in last ARG poll)

These numbers just don't ring true to me. I don't believe Clinton leads Edwards in Iowa, and certainly not by that kind of a margin. All year ARG has had Clinton around 30 percent in Iowa, and I can't remember any other pollster finding her with support that high.

ARG's new numbers for Republicans in Iowa are also at odds with recent polling by other firms. ARG finds:

Giuliani 22

Romney 21

McCain 17

Undecided 15

Fred Thompson 13

Gingrich 4

all others 2 percent or less 

What do other people think about this poll?

I guess when other firms release their results we'll find out which is the outlier: ARG or the latest KCCI Iowa poll conducted by Research 2000.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I was thinking that it would be helpful to have a box somewhere listing all of the Iowa politicians who have endorsed presidential candidates this year. I know Chris Woods has been keeping track of those, but I don't have a comprehensive list. Even if I did, I am not able to redesign the page.

What do people think? Is this a feature you'd like to see at Bleeding Heartland? Might be useful as a reference.

Speaking of which, has Patty Judge endorsed Edwards? Someone told me yesterday that she has, but I don't remember reading about it, and I couldn't find a link on the Des Moines Register website. 

Howard Dean was at the top of the polls in Iowa leading up to the 2004 Iowa Caucuses. Richard Gephardt was polling well, but trending down. Gephardt had placed all his bets on Iowa and had to find a way to win. So Gephardt started running ads going after Dean. Dean countered back with ads attacking Gephardt.

While Gephardt's and Dean's ads turned Iowans off from their campaigns, John Kerry and John Edwards kept focusing on the issues and organizing. The night of the caucuses saw Kerry and Edwards come out on top with Dean and Gephardt coming in 3rd and 4th. Iowa was witness of a murder-suicide of the Dean and Gephardt campaigns.

After this week's spat between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, I can see this scenario happening again. It is important for Clinton and Obama to finish ahead of the other one in Iowa. As the Iowa caucuses approach, whoever is behind is likely to air ads attacking the other. There is a good chance Clinton and Obama will do exactly what Dean and Gephardt did and we will see yet another murder-suicide scenario.

So with Obama and Clinton mainly focusing on beating each other and seemingly willing to do whatever it takes to do so, there is an opening for other candidates to have big victories in Iowa.

Originally posted at Century of the Common Iowan. 

**Update**
It was brought to my attention that David Yepsen had a post yesterday that had basically the same connection to the Dean-Gephardt attack ads back in 2004.  I had not read his post nor had heard about before posting mine.  I got the idea from reading Joe Trippi's book, The Revolution Will Not be Televised about the Dean campaign last week.

Judging from the low number of undecideds, they pushed leaners too hard, but for what it's worth, here is the latest KCCI Iowa poll conducted by Research 2000, conducted July 23-July 25:

Edwards 27

Clinton 22

Obama 16

Richardson 11

Biden 3

Kucinich 2

Dodd 2

Gravel 1 

Undecided 16

It's good news for Edwards that there was no “Bubba bump” for Hillary–on the contrary, she was down 6 points compared to the last Research 2000 Iowa poll in May. Not good news for Obama at all. But the movement is not far outside the 4 percent margin of error for this poll. I still believe that around half of Iowa Democrats are undecided.

On the Republican side:

Romney 25 

F. Thompson 14

Giuliani 13

McCain 10

Gingrich 6

Huckabee 2

T. Thompson 2

Tancredo 2

Brownback 2

Hunter 1

Paul 1

Undecided 22 

How depressed would you be if you were Tommy Thompson, Huckabee, Brownback or Tancredo? Clearly the GOP base is unhappy with the crop of frontrunners, yet these second-tier conservative candidates can't get any kind of traction, despite spending lots of time in Iowa.

I don't know what is going to happen on the GOP side. It looks like everyone is unelectable to me, but someone is going to emerge from the primaries. Please, let it be Gingrich! 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I wasn't able to watch because of the kids–will try to catch it later.

Who did well, who missed opportunities, who stole the show?

UPDATE: If you missed the debate, check out the great liveblog  over at Iowa Independent.

I haven't found all of the candidate-submitted videos in one place. I liked the Edwards “hair” video–the music and the visuals make it quite memorable.

My dad was a Rockefeller Republican. He was disappointed by the turn the party took in the 1980s and 1990s, and though he died before George W. Bush was selected president, I've always felt that he would have definitively made the break from the GOP during this decade.

At the same time, I've felt that the number of disenchanted Rockefeller Republicans (liberal on social issues and supportive of things like progressive taxation and the estate tax) is not big enough to cost the GOP much in the electoral arena.

Tonight I ran into a former colleague of my father's, whom I hadn't seen in a long time. It was an eye-opening conversation to me; the circle of Republicans who are disgusted by their party's standard-bearers is broader than I had realized.

More after the jump. 

It's ridiculously early for yard signs–I don't think any of the Democrats are handing them out yet. So I was surprised to see a “Ron Paul–Hope for America” yard sign today in a fairly Democratic neighborhood on the west side of Des Moines.

If you know Des Moines, the house is just off Polk Blvd, close to the Waveland Cafe. I don't know the precinct number, but if memory serves, this was an area where Kucinich was viable in 2004.

Anyone else seen any yard signs up yet?

Mike Lux posted this earlier over at Open Left:

If you are living in Iowa, please send me your thoughts and stories regarding the state of play as things move forward to

openleft at gmail dot com

I’d love to hear your on-the-ground perspective.

The caucus reports from those on the ground is going to be a new feature at Open Left and he’s looking for activists, writers, and anyone else to send him their thoughts.  That means you.  Drop him a line every once in a while, and tell him what you think its like on the ground here in Iowa.

And while you’re at, leave your thoughts in diaries here as well.  Bleeding Heartland only grows when you post your own thoughts, leave comments, and invite your friends to take part in our community.

Earlier today Sen. Hillary Clinton’s campaign actively solicited bloggers to join in on a conference call hosted by their blogger, Peter Daou, in announcing a “special endorsement.”  The campaign didn’t release any more information about the endorsement and it was a pretty cryptic move, yet I still decided to join in on the call along with several other major bloggers from across the progressive blogosphere.

So, at 12:30 PM Central time I got on the call to find out that the special endorsement was coming from former Ambassador Joe Wilson, the husband of outed CIA operative Valerie Plame.  And by 12:53 PM I broke the news on Iowa Independent that Amb. Wilson had chosen to endorse Clinton.

Multiple blogs picked up the news and reported the news, as they should have because it was a substantial endorsement.  But the traditional or mainstream media didn’t pick up the story at all.

Greg Sargent of TPM’s Election Central posted these thoughts about the call:

“A few quick points about this. The Hillary campaign, which rolled out the Wilson news on a conference call with liberal bloggers, clearly hopes the Wilson endorsement serves at least the partial goal of winning over liberal activists and netroots types who might still be unhappy with Hillary for all the reasons you’ve heard repeatedly by now. Wilson carries great cache among such folks, who were energized by his speaking out against the administration and everything else that happened as a result of his protracted fight with the White House.”

Taylor Marsh wrote:

“The ’08 selection season is not over by a long shot and I am staying neutral in the primary. But the endorsement of Clinton by Joseph Wilson is a big step for her campaign. That Clinton offered the scoop to a group of bloggers shows just how far she’s come and how far she’s willing to engage a community, which on the whole is very critical of her on all fronts. She’s also accepted the invitation to YearlyKos, which I’m looking forward to very much. Clinton is illustrating her ability to engage on all fronts, even where she knows she’ll take heat. The strength of Clinton’s candidacy continues to expand.”

The campaign seemed like they were genuinely reaching out to the netroots constituency, giving them a big story, and were going to let them break the news.

However, the blogs didn’t get credit with breaking the news.  The Clinton campaign didn’t direct the traditional or mainstream media to blogposts about the endorsement and then elaborate and what was reported by citizen journalists.  Instead, they waited until later in the afternoon and put out a release from the campaign.  Their campaign didn’t even post the announcement on their blog until two hours after the conference call occurred and didn’t link to any other bloggers’ reactions (of which their was plenty).

The Des Moines Register first reported their story on the endorsement at 6:15 PM this evening, a full 5 hours after the news was broken at Iowa Independent, on their own blog.

Now, I admit, I’m probably a little pissy and being a bit selfish.  Both because I broke the story on Iowa Independent and because I’m a blogger who has been harsh on Clinton in the past.  Multiple other blogs around the country, even ones more than important than Bleeding Heartland, have been critical of Clinton (even unfairly so) so when I got today’s invitation to the call I was hopeful that it would be genuine interaction with a constituency or interest group that hadn’t been on her side for a long time.  Particularly on the issue of Iraq, she’s had to fight for respect on the blogs.

Other campaigns have been great about highlighting how the netroots help in breaking and spreading news about the campaigns, and even engage them like the traditional media (see Chris Dodd’s, John Edwards’ and Bill Richardson’s campaigns as an example).  Heck, Bill Richardson’s campaign sends out a weekly “Richardson Round-Up” in Iowa that highlights what the media–both traditional and new–have been saying about the candidate in the past week.

Instead, the Clinton campaign let the blogs break the news and then let it fester amongst themselves.  Then gave the traditional media a heads-up a few hours later and even let Wilson do some one-on-one interviews over the phone.

Maybe I’m just jealous.  But it sure seems like if you’re going to reach out, make it count and put some force into it.  Don’t do it half-assed.

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

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

Link:

http://www.siouxcity…

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

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

On July 5 Dick Gephardt officially endorsed Hillary Clinton for president. I assume that he will be campaigning for her in Iowa, since he won the caucuses in 1988 and had a fair amount of support here even in his disappointing fourth-place finish last cycle.

My question to Bleeding Heartland readers is, how much does this help Hillary? Gephardt was not viable in my precinct in either 1988 or 2004, and I don't know a lot of people who backed him. I know that he had a lot of support from organized labor. Will they care that he is endorsing Hillary?

Speaking as someone who worked her butt off for Kerry before the last Iowa caucuses, if Kerry came out and endorsed one of the other presidential candidates, I wouldn't even consider rethinking my choice. Kerry's preference among the current Democratic field is totally irrelevant to me.

Will Gephardt's backing carry more weight with the people who supported him?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm off to march in the Windsor Heights parade with the Edwards group. I don't think I'll be doing any blogging today, but noneedthneed is going to be very busy, so click over to Century of the Common Iowan (link is on the blogroll at the right) for his write-ups.

While you're at it, check out the other Iowa liberal blogs, including John Deeth and Iowa Independent, which have published lots of campaign coverage lately.

I must say, though, that I find it distracting to read those liveblog posts that go backward in time as you're reading from the top down.

Got an e-mail from Tom Harkin announcing that his wife Ruth is endorsing Hillary. Here's an excerpt:

She feels that women who are lucky enough to serve in public office had, and continue to have, a responsibility to opening doors and paving a new way for those seeking other leadership roles. And as Ruth looked closely at who is best suited to do the job of President and to inspire a new generation of leaders, Hillary topped the list.

Thanks a lot, Ruth. If Hillary loses the general to a Republican who puts two or three more Alitos on the Supreme Court, I hope you'll apologize to all women.

Of the many things that bother me about the Hillary Clinton candidacy, one of the biggest is this idea that women are supposed to back her as a pathbreaker (with the corollary that people who don't back her are sexist or can't handle strong women). Hillary would be a weak general election candidate, and I don't even think she would be the best president out of the current field.

The e-mail also mentions that Tom Harkin has no plans to endorse any of the presidential candidates. Smart move, senator. 

without hitting a presidential candidate during the next week in Iowa.

Noneed4thneed's got a comprehensive list of who'll be where over at Century of the Common Iowan. Click through for info on impending visits by Biden, Dodd, Obama, Clinton, Romney, Huckabee and Tancredo.

Got an e-mail from the Biden campaign:

July 3rd: Enjoy a day at the State Capitol. Stop by the Yankee Doodle Pops and then come see Senator Biden's 2:30pm press conference on the steps. Several major State Legislators will be endorsing Biden and you can join in the festivities.

July 4th: March with Senator Biden in the Urbandale Parade. Line up is at 9:30am on 70th St between Palm Dr. and Roseland Dr. The parade starts at 10am. Wave to the crowds and share the excitement of Independence Day as you and Senator Biden< make your way through Urbandale. July 4th: Come to Senator Biden's backyard Barbecue hosted at the home of Nate and Meg Boulton. Guests are welcome at 1:30pm. This is a great chance to experience the Senator and Presidential Candidate one on one, ask questions, and enjoy a beautiful day. For details or to RSVP please contact Raena, Raena@JoeBiden.com or 515-440-2008.

Anyone know who's planning to endorse Biden?

Anyone keeping track of the statehouse endorsements so far? The only one I know of for sure is Staci Appel, who's on the Hillary bandwagon. 

As usual, I'm taping the debate to watch later, after the kids are in bed.

If you watched, let us know what you thought. Who won? Who missed a great opportunity? Who had the best line? 

As I talk to voters in my precinct who caucused in 2004, I am finding that very few of them have watched the first two debates. I think people will tune in more in the fall. 

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

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

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

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

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

Seriously, Newsday breaks a story that he couldn't make time to attend the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group meetings, because he was too busy giving $100,000 speeches.

Then his Iowa campaign chairman, Jim Nussle, takes a job in the sinking ship that is the Bush White House.

Then his South Carolina campaign chairman gets indicted on federal cocaine charges.

Talk about a bad week! Stick a fork in him–he's done. 

UPDATE: Mike Glover of the AP covers Rudy's answers to some tough questions. Apparently he expects us to believe that he quit the Baker-Hamilton commission because it “didn't seem that I would really be able to keep the thing focused on a bipartisan, nonpolitical resolution.”