Zach Simonson became chair of the Wapello County Democrats in April. He lives in Ottumwa and works as a building inspector. He can be found on Twitter at @zachsimonsonIA. -promoted by Laura Belin

Shortly after my election this spring, I received a missive from the Iowa Democratic Party requesting that county chairs refrain from making caucus endorsements. While it seems like that plea earned mixed results statewide, I intend to honor it. Mostly.

I’m not naive enough to think anyone truly cares about my endorsement. But if being a county chair provides a platform to speak on the caucus, then I have something to shout into the black hole of online caucus discourse: for God’s sake, don’t vote for Joe Biden!

Former U.S. Representative Leonard Boswell passed away on August 17 at the age of 84. He had long battled a rare cancer called pseudomyxoma peritonei. Boswell publicly speculated in 2015 that exposure to Agent Orange during the Vietnam War could have caused his abdominal tumors. According to a former staff member, a link to the powerful herbicide was later confirmed. In a recorded message to Iowa Democrats last year, Boswell said his doctors agreed that his disease stemmed from getting “pretty well soaked” while flying a crop-duster mission.

Surviving two tours of duty as an assault helicopter pilot in Vietnam was itself beating the odds. Boswell received numerous honors for his actions in that extremely dangerous role.

Following 20 years of military service, Boswell became a cattle farmer in southern Iowa. First elected to the Iowa Senate in 1984, he served three terms in the legislature, the last as Senate president. He was well-liked in Democratic circles. When I met him briefly during the 1994 campaign (he was the lieutenant governor nominee on a ticket with Bonnie Campbell), he seemed to have a larger-than-life personality.

After winning an open U.S. House seat in 1996, Boswell represented parts of central and southern Iowa in Congress for sixteen years. His proudest legislative accomplishment was sponsoring the Joshua Omvig Veterans Suicide Prevention Act, which President George W. Bush signed in 2007. Though he belonged to the conservative “Blue Dog” caucus, Boswell voted for the major legislation of President Barack Obama’s first term, including the economic stimulus bill and the Affordable Care Act.

Best wishes to the veterans in the Bleeding Heartland community and others for whom today is especially meaningful.

Last year I posted Veterans Day links here and mentioned a friend who had recently come home from Iraq. His brother was deployed in Afghanistan at the time and came home safely this year. He is the focus of Rekha Basu’s column in today’s Des Moines Register. I’ve posted some excerpts after the jump.

Todd Dorman wrote here about the origins of Armistice Day and the first Iowans who died in World War I. In the UK, where the “Great War” had a much greater impact on the population, November 11 is known as Remembrance Day. Sales of red poppies to wear on that day are a huge fundraiser for the Royal British Legion.

Share your own thoughts about Veterans Day in this thread.

President Barack Obama announced yesterday that the last remaining U.S. troops in Iraq will leave that country by the end of 2011. All the Iowa Democrats in Congress welcomed the news and commended war veterans for their service. Senator Tom Harkin expressed regret only that the end to this “misguided” war “did not come sooner.” Representative Bruce Braley (IA-01) similarly described the war’s end as “long overdue.” Representative Dave Loebsack (IA-02) pledged to “closely monitor the safety of our troops” as they leave Iraq. Representative Leonard Boswell (IA-03) called for working “towards this end in Afghanistan as soon as possible.”

After the jump I’ve posted the president’s comments on the troop withdrawal as well as the full statements from Harkin, Braley, Loebsack and Boswell. I will update this post if I see comments from Republican Senator Chuck Grassley, Representative Tom Latham (IA-04) or Representative Steve King (IA-05).

Since Memorial Day was established a few years after the Civil War, Americans have marked the holiday every year by remembering our war dead (ok, almost all our war dead). In his weekly address, President Barack Obama asked Americans to honor “not just those who’ve worn this country’s uniform, but the men and women who’ve died in its service; who’ve laid down their lives in defense of their fellow citizens; who’ve given their last full measure of devotion to protect the United States of America.”

Every so often I read the I Got The News Today profiles of Americans killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. According to an old Jewish teaching, saving one life is equivalent to saving the whole world. The IGTNT diaries, like “Six More Lost to All Who Loved Them,” are a crushing reminder that the death of one person is like the death of the whole world to the people left behind.

The IGTNT series will likely continue for many more years. The number of Americans killed in Afghanistan recently passed 1,000, and we are preparing to send an additional 30,000 troops there. Although we have fewer troops in Iraq now than we did for most of the past seven years, we have more troops deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan combined now than we did when Obama became president.  

The price of these wars is also enormous in monetary terms. On May 30 the estimated cost of U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq exceeded $1 trillion. We could have done lots of things with that kind of money. On May 27 the U.S. Senate passed yet another war supplemental funding bill, this time for $58.8 billion. On May 28 the House passed the $726 billion Defense Authorization Bill for 2011 (roll call here). Iowa’s House members split on party lines, with Democrats Bruce Braley (IA-01), Dave Loebsack (IA-02) and Leonard Boswell (IA-03) supporting them and Republicans Tom Latham (IA-04) and Steve King (IA-05) voting no.

Meanwhile, Congress adjourned for the Memorial Day weekend without extending unemployment benefits or passing another jobs bill. This economic relief bill had already been watered down because of “concerns” about deficit spending. You’ll notice few members of Congress are concerned about deficit spending to fund our endless war machine.

For many, Memorial Day is a time to remember lost loved ones, regardless of whether they served in the military. Cedar Rapids Gazette columnist Todd Dorman’s mother recently died, and he wrote this tribute to her.

For some people, Memorial Day is first and foremost the unofficial beginning of summer. Feel free to share any fun plans or picnic recipes in the comments. We’ve been invited to a potluck tomorrow, and I haven’t decided whether to make my favorite chick pea dish (from Madhur Jaffrey’s Indian Cooking), a North African potato salad with olive oil and spices, or a pasta salad with a Chinese-style peanut butter sauce. I like to bring vegan dishes to potlucks so I don’t worry if they sit outside for a few hours. Also, the party I’m attending tomorrow may include some vegetarians and people who keep kosher (they don’t mix meat with dairy in the same meal).

This thread is for anything on your mind this weekend.

UPDATE: Graphs showing number of days in Iraq and number of U.S. deaths in Iraq before and after President George W. Bush announced “Mission Accomplished.”

It took me a week longer than I anticipated, but I finally finished compiling links to Bleeding Heartland’s coverage from last year. This post and part 2, coming later today, include stories on national politics, mostly relating to Congress and Barack Obama’s administration. Diaries reviewing Iowa politics in 2009 will come soon.

One thing struck me while compiling this post: on all of the House bills I covered here during 2009, Democrats Leonard Boswell, Bruce Braley and Dave Loebsack voted the same way. That was a big change from 2007 and 2008, when Blue Dog Boswell voted with Republicans and against the majority of the Democratic caucus on many key bills.

No federal policy issue inspired more posts last year than health care reform. Rereading my earlier, guardedly hopeful pieces was depressing in light of the mess the health care reform bill has become. I was never optimistic about getting a strong public health insurance option through Congress, but I thought we had a chance to pass a very good bill. If I had anticipated the magnitude of the Democratic sellout on so many aspects of reform in addition to the public option, I wouldn’t have spent so many hours writing about this issue. I can’t say I wasn’t warned (and warned), though.

Links to stories from January through June 2009 are after the jump. Any thoughts about last year’s political events are welcome in this thread.

Tonight President Barack Obama addressed cadets at West Point and announced:

And as Commander-in-Chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan. After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home. These are the resources that we need to seize the initiative, while building the Afghan capacity that can allow for a responsible transition of our forces out of Afghanistan. […]

The 30,000 additional troops that I am announcing tonight will deploy in the first part of 2010 – the fastest pace possible – so that they can target the insurgency and secure key population centers. They will increase our ability to train competent Afghan Security Forces, and to partner with them so that more Afghans can get into the fight. And they will help create the conditions for the United States to transfer responsibility to the Afghans.

Charles Lemos posted the full text of the speech here. My comments are after the jump.

Crossposted from Hillbilly Report. Come join the conversation on Rural America, our issues and candidates for the 2010 elections!! City-Slickers welcome too!!

We all remember the no-bid contracts we were so opposed to under the last administration. Now, it has long appeared that all the crimes committed on all levels in this fiasco will go unpunished. Although we are still far from punishing the lies and propoganda unleashed on the American people to start this war, after a court ruling hopefully at least part of the rampant fraud that will cost Americans well over a trillion dollars will be punished.  

Longtime Bleeding Heartland readers know that I’ve always worried Barack Obama would leave too many U.S. troops in Iraq for too long. When he decided to stick with George W. Bush’s Secretary of Defense, some analysts argued that Robert Gates would give Obama cover to withdraw from Iraq, but I felt it was more likely that Gates would give Obama cover not to withdraw from Iraq, at least not fully.

This week President Obama announced his plans for Iraq. Supposedly “combat operations” will end by August 2010, meaning that the withdrawal will take 18 months rather than 16 months, as Obama promised during the campaign. My concern is not the extra two months, but Obama’s decision to leave a residual force of 35,000 to 50,000 in Iraq after August 2010. That sounds like too large a contingent to me and to many Congressional Democrats.

I suppose I should be grateful that Obama isn’t following the advice of Colin Kahl, who headed his Iraq working group during the campaign. Kahl has advocated leaving 60,000 to 80,000 troops in Iraq for years (see also here).

Seeing the glass half full, Chris Bowers is pleased that Obama says all U.S. military will be out of Iraq by the end of 2011:

In September of 2007, President Obama refused to promise to remove all troops from Iraq by January 20th, 2013. Now, he has promised to remove them all by December 31st, 2011. That is a positive shift.

This is huge for no residual forces proponents. Now that President Obama has made this pledge, in public, it will be difficult for him to go back on it. This is especially the case since turning back on a promise with a deadline of December 31st, 2011, means violating a pledge during 2012–the year President Obama will be running for re-election. Anti-war proponents need to be prepared to raise holy hell during 2012 if this promise is not kept.

It is frustrating that it took the Iraqi government, rather than internal anti-war pressure, to finally secure a no residual troop promise from the American government (and they actually succeeded in wringing it out of the Bush administration, something Democrats were entirely unable to achieve). Still, as someone who has opposed the Iraq war for more than six years, and who been has writing about the need for no residual American military forces in Iraq for more than two years, any promise of no residual forces from the American government, backed up by a binding, public document like the Status of Forces Agreement, it an extremely welcome development no matter how it was secured.

The Iraq war is going to end. No residual troops after 2011.

I am concerned that some excuse will be found by then to push back the deadline. (Seeing John McCain and other Republicans praise Obama’s plans for Iraq does not reassure me.) I have little confidence that the anti-war movement would raise “holy hell” during a presidential election year if Obama backs off on this promise.

But I am biased on this point, because I’ve never believed in Obama as a great anti-war hero.

So, I’m opening up the floor to the Bleeding Heartland community. Are you ecstatic, optimistic, skeptical, or disappointed with Obama’s Iraq policy? Do you believe he will stick to the deadlines he outlined this week for the end of combat operations and the withdrawal of all residual troops?

Feel free to discuss our Afghanistan policy in this thread too. Obama plans to increase the number of U.S. troops there, but Senator Russ Feingold and some others are wondering whether more troops will help us achieve our stated mission.

Over Thanksgiving my family (all Barack Obama voters in the general) were talking about what we’d like to see him do as president. One of my biggest concerns about Obama has always been that he would compromise too much in the name of bipartisanship and not seize the opportunity to get groundbreaking legislation through Congress. I’ve also worried that he would water down good policies that threaten to significantly bring down his approval rating.

From my perspective, Bill Clinton’s presidency was not very successful for a lot of reasons. Some of them were his fault: he put the wrong people in charge of certain jobs, and he picked the wrong battles and listened too much to Wall Street advisers when it came to policy.

Some things were not Clinton’s fault: the Democrats who ran Congress in 1993 and 1994 were not always interested in working with him, and the leaders of the Republican-controlled Congress were more interested in destroying his presidency than anything else.

After getting burned in the 1994 elections, Clinton hired Dick Morris as a political adviser and moved to the right in order to get re-elected. He served a full two terms, but he didn’t leave a mark on this country. His greatest achievement, balancing the budget, was undone quickly by his successor. Many smaller successes on environmental and social policies were also reversed by George Bush’s administration.

Clinton approved a bunch of good presidential directives, especially on the environment, during his last 60 days in office. Doing them years earlier would not only have been good policy, it also would have prevented Ralph Nader from gaining so much traction in 2000.

Clinton left some very big problems unaddressed, like global warming and our reliance on foreign oil, because the obvious solutions to these problems would have been unpopular.

Compare Clinton’s legacy to that of Lyndon Johnson. Although Johnson made terrible mistakes in Vietnam (continuing and compounding mistakes made by John F. Kennedy), he enacted a domestic agenda that changed this country forever. Some of Johnson’s achievements were popular (Medicare), while others cost the Democrats politically in many states (the Civil Rights Act). But Johnson did not shy away from big change on civil rights because of the political cost.

I understand that no president will ever do everything I’d like to see done. I’d be satisfied if Obama enacted a groundbreaking, lasting improvement in one or two big areas, like health care or global warming. The right policies often have powerful enemies. I would rather see Obama get good laws passed to address a couple of big problems, even if doing so costs him the 2012 election.

My fear is that in Obama will end up like Bill Clinton–a two-term president who didn’t achieve anything that will continue to affect Americans’ lives four or five decades down the road.

If Obama only goes to the mat to accomplish one or two big things, what should they be? Keeping his promise to end the war in Iraq? Getting universal health care through Congress? Taking real steps to address climate change? Enacting a huge public-works program to deal with unemployment? Building high-speed rail connecting major American cities?

Would you be satisfied with progress in one or two areas, even if it meant that Obama was not re-elected in 2012?

After the jump I’ve posted a “meme” on being bold in your personal life, which is going around some of the “mommy blogs.” Some of the questions have more to do with luck or having money than with taking risks or being bold, though.

At MyDD Todd Beeton has excerpts from this morning’s press conference:

Obama’s introductory remarks are remarkably poetic. “America’s values are our country’s greatest export to the world.”

He’s announced his nomination of Hillary Clinton for secretary of state (“I am proud that she will be our next secretary of state…She will help restore our reputation around the world,”) Robert Gates at defense (“responsibly ending the war in Iraq through a successful transition to Iraqi control”,) Eric Holder for Attorney General (“The Attorney General serves the American people…I have no doubt he will uphold the constitution,”) Janet Napolitano as head of Homeland Security (“she insists on competence and accountability,”) Susan Rice as Ambassador to the UN and Jim Jones as National Security Advisor.

“We will shape our times instead of being shaped by them.” […]

As for his choice of Clinton at state, “it was not a lightbulb moment…she shares my core values and the values of the American people. I was always interested after the primary was over in finding ways to collaborate…It occurred to me that she could potentially be an outstanding secretary of state, I offered her the position and she accepted.”

On whether he still intends to remove troops from Iraq in 16 months: “Remember what I said during the campaign. I said that I would remove our combat troops from Iraq within 16 months keeping in mind that it might be necessary to maintain a residual force…As I said consistently, I will listen to the recommendations of my commanders.”

Like I said last week, I have a bad feeling Gates and Jones were chosen in order to give Obama cover for breaking his campaign promises on Iraq.

Beth Fouhy of the Associated Press has details about the deal Bill Clinton made to allow his wife to become Barack Obama’s secretary of state. Apparently, the former president agreed:

-to disclose the names of every contributor to his foundation since its inception in 1997 and all contributors going forward.

-to refuse donations from foreign governments to the Clinton Global Initiative, his annual charitable conference.

-to cease holding CGI meetings overseas.

-to volunteer to step away from day to day management of the foundation while his wife is secretary of state.

-to submit his speaking schedule to review by the State Department and White House counsel.

-to submit any new sources of income to a similar ethical review.

I still think Hillary Clinton would be able to accomplish more over her lifetime as a senator from New York, but clearly she was strongly motivated to accept this position in Obama’s government.

However, I continue to be amused by the anguished commentaries from those Obama supporters who got too wrapped up in the primary battle to deal with Hillary in her new role.

Share any relevant thoughts in the comments.

Two months from now, Barack Obama will be inaugurated, having promised to withdraw most U.S. troops from Iraq within 16 months:

Immediately upon taking office, Obama will give his Secretary of Defense and military commanders a new mission in Iraq: ending the war. The removal of our troops will be responsible and phased, directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government. Military experts believe we can safely redeploy combat brigades from Iraq at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades a month that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 – more than 7 years after the war began.

Under the Obama-Biden plan, a residual force will remain in Iraq and in the region to conduct targeted counter-terrorism missions against al Qaeda in Iraq and to protect American diplomatic and civilian personnel. They will not build permanent bases in Iraq, but will continue efforts to train and support the Iraqi security forces as long as Iraqi leaders move toward political reconciliation and away from sectarianism.

I’ve been skeptical about whether Obama would follow through on this promise ever since I learned in April that Colin Kahl, the man Obama put in charge of his working group on Iraq, was secretly recommending that the U.S. leave 60,000 to 80,000 troops in Iraq at least through the end of 2010.

As of June, Kahl was still Obama’s leading adviser on Iraq, and he co-authored a report advocating that “a large contingent of American forces [remain] in Iraq for several years”.

Now Obama is leaning toward leaving Robert Gates in charge of the Department of Defense for some time. In the best-case scenario, Gates would oversee the phased withdrawal of troops over a 16-month period, and then Obama would put someone else in charge of the DOD. On the other hand, it seems plausible that someone George W. Bush trusted to enact his Iraq policy might strongly advise the new president to back off from his planned timetable.

Consider Obama’s reported choice of General Jim Jones as national security adviser. Does it seem likely that this man, who backed John McCain for president, would encourage Obama to get us out of Iraq as quickly as we could safely do so?

The Daily Telegraph, a British newspaper, reported over the weekend,

There is growing concern among a new generation of anti-war foreign policy analysts in Washington, many of whom stuck their necks out to support Mr Obama early in the White House race, that they will be frozen out of his administration.

Mrs Clinton is expected to appoint her own top team at the State Department, drawn from more conservative thinkers.

A Democratic foreign policy expert told one Washington website: “They were the ones courageous enough to stand up early against Iraq, which is why many supported Obama in the first place.” Their fear, he added, is that they will not now secure the mid-level posts which will enable them to reach the top of the Washington career ladder in future.

Although I never thought Obama and Clinton were very different on Iraq or other policy matters, I feel sorry for the policy wonks who supported Obama because they thought he would be better on Iraq.

As Al Giordano recently reminded us, these people took a big risk for Obama:

Way back in ancient times – I’m talking about 2007 – the most difficult place to be a supporter of then-Senator Barack Obama’s presidential bid was inside the Washington DC beltway. […]

If you were a Democrat in or around DC and backed Obama for president you were a pariah, shunned, no longer invited to the cocktail parties or policy panels. And no small number of Clinton bandwagoneers would take every chance to remind you that, once the White House had been reconquered, you would be screwed to the wall, and viciously so.

I have no contacts in DC, but this account has the ring of truth for me. I remember one particularly obnoxious Clinton supporter who used to comment at MyDD regularly during 2007. When Hillary’s nomination seemed inevitable, he would brag about his Washington connections and how after she wrapped things up on Super Tuesday, hellfire would rain down on certain people who had supported Obama for president.

I am not opposed to Clinton as secretary of state, but I think Obama owes something to the people who were there for him early on because (they thought) he was a strong opponent of the Iraq War.

For me, the most shocking part of the Telegraph story was this:

Suspicion of Mr Obama’s moves has been compounded, for some liberals, by the revelation that Mr Obama has for several months been taking advice from Brent Scowcroft, the national security adviser to the first President Bush.

Scowcroft? I know a lot of Democrats would be happy to see Obama serve out Bill Clinton’s third term, but I’m pretty sure none of them voted for Obama so that he could serve out Poppy Bush’s second term.

The Wall Street Journal confirms the connections between Obama and Scowcroft:

Many of the Republicans emerging as potential members of the Obama administration have professional and ideological ties to Brent Scowcroft, a former national-security adviser turned public critic of the Bush White House.

Mr. Scowcroft spoke by phone with President-elect Barack Obama last week, the latest in a months-long series of conversations between the two men about defense and foreign-policy issues, according to people familiar with the discussions.

The relationship between the president-elect and the Republican heavyweight suggests that Mr. Scowcroft’s views, which place a premium on an Israeli-Palestinian peace accord, might hold sway in the Obama White House.

Don’t get me wrong, I would like to see Obama pick up the Israeli-Palesstinian peace process, and I am aware that Scowcroft has criticized George W. Bush’s conduct of the war in Iraq.

Still, it seems unjust for Obama to get elected on the promise of big change and then turn around an appoint a bunch of Scowcroft’s buddies to his foreign policy shop–especially if the foreign policy experts who were there for Obama early on are left out in the cold.

I would love to be proved wrong, but I am finding it hard to believe that the American military presence in Iraq will be down to a small residual force 18 months from now.

Your thoughts and rebuttals are welcome in the comments.

It’s the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month. Ninety years ago, the Armistice between Germany and the Allies went into effect and the Great War (which later became known as World War I) ended.

NavyBlueWife has a nice piece up at MyDD on the history of Veterans Day and what it means to honor our veterans.

Via BarbinMD I learned that the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA) and the Ad Council have launched a “national multimedia public service advertising (PSA) campaign.”

The campaign aims to address the mental health consequences of combat, which threaten to overwhelm a new generation of veterans. The 1.7 million men and women who have served, or are currently serving, in Iraq and Afghanistan are facing an increased risk of mental health issues. Nearly 20 percent of military servicemembers who have returned – 300,000 in all – report symptoms of post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) or major depression, yet only slightly more than half have sought treatment, according to a RAND Corporation study released in April 2008. Untreated mental health conditions can cause or aggravate other debilitating problems in the veterans’ community including high rates of unemployment, suicide, homelessness, substance abuse, divorce and child abuse.

Created pro bono by ad agency BBDO New York, the campaign seeks to increase the number of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans who seek treatment for mental health issues by connecting them with other veterans with whom they can discuss the issues they face as they readjust to civilian life. The campaign includes television, radio, print, outdoor and Web advertising. The TV spots feature Iraq veterans who are Purple Heart recipients.

You can view the ad here or at the new Community of Veterans website, which is designed for veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Here is the home page of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America.

The “IGTNT” team of diarists at Daily Kos write tributes to all American troops who have died in Iraq or Afghanistan. Today’s edition of this series contains links to many organizations that support and honor veterans.

Thanks to all veterans who have served in peacetime or wartime.

Thanks also to all the members of Congress who voted for the “new GI Bill” in May (you can find the roll call votes for the U.S. House and Senate here). My dad went to college on the GI Bill in the 1940s, and his family would not have been able to afford the tuition otherwise.

This is an open thread for any thoughts you have related to Veterans Day, or anyone you are remembering today.

UPDATE: I learned something new today in this letter to the Des Moines Register: Remember veterans: Fund ALS research

Very few people, including those serving in the military today, know that veterans are twice as likely to die from ALS – the deadly disease known as Lou Gehrig’s Disease.

We don’t know why vets are more likely to develop ALS. But we do know that the disease takes the strongest among us – our military heroes – and robs them of the ability to walk, move their arms, talk, eat and even breathe on their own. They are isolated and awake, alive with the knowledge that they are trapped inside a body they no longer can control.

As the disease progresses, there is little they can do, for there is no treatment for ALS. It is fatal in an average of just two to five years.

Urge elected officials to support funding for ALS research at the Department of Defense so we can learn why the disease is stealing our heroes and take action to protect them. Recently both Congress and the Veterans Administration have supported ALS research and provided benefits to veterans with the disease, but more must be done.

Note: I have included information about a couple of upcoming public events featuring Congressman Steve King. If you have a videocamera and some free time, please consider going to see if he has anything particularly offensive to say.

If you would be willing to show up outside the event wearing a chicken suit representing King’s refusal to debate Rob Hubler, please e-mail me at desmoinesdem AT yahoo.com. There may be a chicken suit you could borrow.

Fewer than 50 days remain before the election. If you haven’t done so already, contact the campaign offices of your local statehouse candidate or Congressional candidate, or one of the Obama field offices in Iowa (http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/iaoffices) to find out what kind of help they need from volunteers.

Remember, if you are not comfortable calling strangers on the phone or knocking on strangers’ doors, there are many other ways volunteers can help.

Post a comment or send me an e-mail if I’ve left out any important events.

Friday, September 19:

From the Obama campaign in Iowa:

Delaware Governor Ruth Ann Minner to Campaign in Iowa on Behalf of Obama Campaign

Governor Minner will hold events in Knoxville and Ames to talk about the Obama-Biden plans to bring America the change we need

Des Moines, Iowa – On Friday, September 19th, 2008, Delaware Governor Ruth Ann Minner will visit Iowa to talk to Iowans about the Obama-Biden plans to ensure fairness and economic security for Iowa’s working women.   Gov. Minner will hold a brown bag lunch in Knoxville and a meet and greet in Ames.

Since taking office in 2001, Gov. Minner has worked to get things done in Delaware by improving schools, preserving and protecting the environment, improving health care and fighting cancer, and creating and keeping jobs.

Beginning her political career in 1974, Gov. Minner served four terms in the state House of Representatives (1974-1982), and served three terms in the state Senate (1982-1993). She served as Delaware’s Lieutenant Governor from 1993 until 2001. Gov. Minner became the 72nd governor and the first female governor of the state of Delaware on January 3, 2001.

The details of the events are:

FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 19TH, 2008

12:00 PM CDT

Women’s Brown Bag Lunch with Governor Ruth Ann Minner

Coffee Connection

213 E Main St., #2

Knoxville, Iowa

6:00 PM CDT

Women’s Meet and Greet with Governor Ruth Ann Minner

Legend’s American Grill

119 Stanton Ave

7th floor in the Legacy Suite

Ames, Iowa

Saturday, September 20:

A little bird told me:

Green Plains Renewable Energy, Inc. will host a grand opening celebration at its ethanol plant in Superior, Iowa, on Saturday, September 20, 2008. The festivities will run from 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., and include food and refreshments courtesy of local livestock producers. Congressman Steve King will speak at a dedication ceremony, which begins at noon. Attendees will also have the opportunity to take guided tours of the plant.

Superior is between Spirit Lake and Estherville.  If you are in the area, you might want to pack up your video camera and show.

The Iowa Citizen Action Network is participating in a nationwide canvassing effort to knock on a million doors for peace. MoveOn.org is also involved with this effort. If you’ve got two hours to spare on Saturday, you can sign up to get a list of 40 new or infrequent voters in your neighborhood. You can do this individually wherever you live, or sign up to join groups that will be meeting in Des Moines, Ames and Waterloo. More details are after the jump.  Contact ICAN Organizer Sue Dinsdale at sdinsdale@iowacan.org or 515-277-5077 ext. 14 or go to milliondoorsforpeace.org

From the Obama campaign:

Des Moines, Iowa – On Saturday, September 20th, 2008, Congressman Leonard Boswell will hold an event in Newton as part of the Obama Iowa Campaign for Change’s “Iowa Economic Security Tour.”

The future of our nation’s economy is a focal point in this election, and Congressman Boswell will highlight the differences between the Obama-Biden and McCain-Palin economic plans. This week, Governor Culver and economist Dean Baker kicked off the tour with events in Davenport, Ottumwa and Des Moines.

On the very same day Lehman Brothers collapsed and our stock market was in a freefall this week, John McCain once again declared, “The fundamentals of our economy are strong.”  Really?

“This statement ignores the realities Americans are facing every day,” said Obama Iowa state director Jackie Norris.  “Our country has lost more than 600,000 jobs this year and is averaging nearly 10,000 foreclosures a day.  The fundamentals of our economy are anything but strong, and we need a president who understands that fact.  Barack Obama will cut taxes for middle class families by three times as much as McCain, create good paying jobs by investing in Iowa renewable energies and end tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas.”      

Over the coming weeks, the campaign will host events across Iowa where elected officials, community leaders and policy advisers will talk about Senator Obama’s plan to make our economy work for middle class families and Senator McCain’s plan to give Americans four more years of Bush economic policies that favor big corporations and the wealthiest Americans.

The details are:

SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 20TH, 2008

4:00 PM CDT

Economic Security Tour event with Congressman Leonard Boswell

Obama Iowa Campaign for Change office

207 1st Ave. W

Newton, Iowa

 

From the Sierra Club:

Why our Modern Food System is Not Sustainable

September 20, Ames area

Join us on Saturday, September 20, as we celebrate together the efforts and achievements of fellow Iowa Sierrans and conservation activists at the Story County Conservation Center in McFarland Park north of Ames. Frederick L. Kirschenmann, a Distinguished Fellow, Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture will be the featured speaker. His presentation, “Why our Modern Food System is not Sustainable,” will offer Fred’s unique perspective on the challenges and opportunities we face in balancing an agricultural economy with the protection of our natural heritage. The banquet begins with a social time and silent auction at 11:00 a.m. followed at noon by lunch, Dr. Kirschenmann and an awards ceremony. There are also opportunities to hike the many trails in the park. The event will be catered by renowned Lucallan’s Restaurant, featuring local foods. The cost is $35 per person.

Please RSVP to Neila Seaman, 3839 Merle Hay Road, Suite 280, Des Moines, Iowa, 50310 or Iowa.chapter@sierraclub.org or 515-277-8868.

The Latino Heritage Festival runs Saturday and Sunday in Blank Park on SW 9th by the Zoo in Des Moines. The Polk County Democrats need volunteers to help with the booth, especially anyone who speaks Spanish.  Ideally, we would like to have at least one Spanish speaking person on every shift. The hours are 11am to 7pm Saturday, September 20th and 11am to 7pm Sunday, September 21st.  Any time you are available to help during those hours would be appreciated.  To volunteer, please call Tamyra at 515-285-1800.

Johnson County Heritage Trust Autumn Celebration

The 2nd annual “Under a Cider Moon . . . a Celebration of Autumn with the Johnson County Heritage Trust” fundraising event will be held Saturday, September 20, at 6 p.m at Dick Schwab’s round barn located at 2501 Sugar Bottom Road near Solon, Iowa.  There will be a live and silent auction, live music and local food and beverages. Proceeds will assist JCHT identify, preserve and manage land with significant environmental value in Johnson County.  For additional information visit www.jcht.org or call 1-319-857-4741.  RSVP today by mailing your check or donation to Johnson County Heritage Trust, P. O. Box 2523, Iowa City, Iowa 522440-2523 or by calling credit card information to 1-319-857-4741.

This would be a good place for someone in a chicken suit to stand outside with a sign asking Steve King why he’s afraid to debate Rob Hubler:

Gov. Pawlenty is headed to Iowa this weekend to keynote the Polk County GOP Dinner. Here’s the release from the Iowa GOP:

Pawlenty to headline GOPfest ’08

(Des Moines) — The Polk County GOP has released details for GOPfest ’08, their annual informal fundraiser. This year’s event will be headlined by  Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty.

GOPfest ’08 will take place on Saturday, September 20th at 7 Flags Event Center, 2100 NW 100 St in Clive. Doors will open at 5:30 p.m. with dinner service beginning at 6 p.m. Entertainment will provided by the Sunny Humbucker Band.

Speakers for GOPfest ’08 will include Polk County Chairman Ted Sporer, U.S. House candidate Kim Schmett, U.S. Senate candidate Christopher Reed and 5th District Congressman Steve King. Governor Pawlenty is expected to make his keynote remarks at 7:30 p.m.

“We are very pleased to have Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty come to Polk County for GOPfest ’08,” Sporer said. “Governor Pawlenty is one of the nationally recognized figures in the new generation of Republican leadership and GOPfest is a great opportunity for the people of central Iowa to see and meet him.”

The event is open to the public and tickets can be reserved by email at  ExDir@polkgop.com or by calling 515-280-6438. Cost is $25 for adults, $15 for students and children five years or under admitted free.

As always, post a comment or send me an e-mail if I’ve left out anything important.

Note: the first presidential debate is coming up next Friday, September 26. Democracy for America is organizing debate watch parties across the country.

Monday, September 15:

It’s the last day to get the early-bird discount when registering for the Iowa Environmental Council’s annual conference on October 17. For more details on that event, click here or call 515-244-1194, ext 202.

Tuesday, September 16:

It’s the deadline to register for the Interfaith Allliance of Iowa’s Crossroads luncheon on Friday (see below). For more information or to make a reservation, call (515) 279-8715 or email tiaiowa@dwx.com.

Wednesday, September 17:

The Iowa Citizen Action Network is organizing a public forum to discuss what is needed for economic recovery at The Talk Shop Café, 1015 E. 4th Street in Waterloo at 6:30 pm. We are inviting our Congressional representatives and State and Local Officials to hear from US what we need during this week of Economic Recovery talks.

From the Sierra Club:

Mountaintop Removal Coal Mining:  How Iowans Can Help Bring an End to Destructive Mining!

Learn about Mountaintop Removal Coal Mining, and What Iowans Can Do to Stop This Practice and Move our Nation Towards a Clean Energy Future!

WHO:  Concerned citizens, the Sierra Club National Coal Campaign

WHAT:  Come join your friends and neighbors for an educational presentation about how our reliance on coal-fired electricity is destroying the mountains and communities of Appalachia, and what you can do to stop it!  Hear accounts from Appalachian coalfield residents, watch a portion of a soon to-be-released documentary highlighting the effects of coal on communities and the environment, and join us for refreshments as we discuss the ways that Iowans can put a stop to Mountaintop Removal Mining!

WHEN:  September 17th, 2008 from 7:30 to 9 pm

WHERE:  Grace United Methodist Church, 37th and Cottage Grove, Des Moines

RSVP:  If you plan on attending this event, please contact Lauren Trevisan at lauren.trevisan@sierraclub.org

If you would like any additional information about this event, and if you are planning on attending, please contact Lauren Trevisan at lauren.trevisan@sierraclub.org or 202-675-6278.  Thank you!  I look forward to meeting all of you on Wednesday!

From the Des Moines area chapter of the Holistic Moms Network:

Next Wednesday is our next Holisitic Moms Network meeting.

The meeting will start at 6pm and is located at the FOREST AVE. LIBRARY [in Des Moines] (franklin ave had another meeting the same day)

This months meeting is: Decreasing Your Carbon Footprint at Home- I am very excited to announce that we are going to have Jennifer Oredson a lobbyist from Greenpeace come and lead our discussion!  I met her a few weeks ago at a demonstration Greenpeace had at the Drake farmers market.

I hope to see you all there!  Please feel free to bring a snack to share.

Peace- Rebecca

515-210-7553

From the DNR:

IOWANS ASKED TO ATTEND INFORMATIONAL MEETING REGARDING LOWER DES MOINES RIVER

DES MOINES – Iowans interested in learning about the water quality improvement plan scheduled to be completed for the lower Des Moines River can attend a meeting to be held in three locations the week of Sept. 15.

A segment of the Des Moines River, known as the lower Des Moines River, is on the state’s impaired waters list because of excess E. coli bacteria in the water. This type of bacteria may indicate the presence of disease-causing human pathogens.  

The lower Des Moines segment runs from downtown Des Moines where the Raccoon River enters to the uppermost part of Red Rock Reservoir.  This segment collects water from many important Iowa rivers and streams including Raccoon River, Saylorville Lake, Beaver Creek, Four Mile Creek, North River, Middle River and South River.

The study, or DNR water quality improvement plan, will look at the problems and potential solutions for the river. The document can be used as a guide to improve recreation, wildlife and fishing on the river for local resource agencies, partners, stakeholders and residents interested in making a difference.

“We would like to work with people interested in learning more about water quality and how they can affect positive change in their watershed,” said Jeff Berckes with the DNR’s Watershed Improvement program. “These meetings are the first chance for the public to express their ideas on what can be done to improve the lower Des Moines River.”

Indianola:  Sept. 17, 7-9 p.m., Carver Hall Room 215 at Simpson College, West Clinton Ave.

Staff from the DNR’s Watershed Improvement Program will be on hand to answer questions.

Those not able to attend the public meeting can receive more information at www.iowadnr.gov/water/watershed/tmdl/publicnotice.html Or, they can contact Jeff Berckes, water quality improvement program coordinator,  by emailing jeff.berckes@dnr.iowa.gov, calling (515) 281-4791 or mailing him care of the DNR, Wallace State Office Building, 502 E. Ninth St., Des Moines, IA 50319

After gathering Iowans’ comments, the DNR will complete a draft plan.  When the document is completed, it will be presented to the public for comments and then submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for approval. Local groups interested in improving water quality in the lower Des Moines River can then use the plan to assist their improvement efforts.

Parents, caregivers and children of all ages are welcome to attend Holistic Moms meetings.

Thursday, September 18:

The Polk County Democrats 9th Annual Women’s Event will take place from 5:00 P.M. to 7:00 P.M.

at the home of Dr. Andy McGuire, 100 37th St. in Des Moines (South of Grand Ave on 37th). With Guest of Honor Governor Ruth Ann Minner of Delaware. Please call to RSVP at 515-285-1800 or email polkdems@polkcountydemocrats.org

The Iowa Citizen Action Network is organizing another “listening post” event on health care:

Have you been struggling with your health insurance coverage?  Do you find yourself paying more for less coverage every year?  Have you been denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions?  Have you been dropped from your coverage and aren’t sure how to fight back?  Do you have a family member or neighbor who is struggling?

Here’s your chance to let your elected representatives know what you’re going through, and what you think they should do about it. September 18, from 6:30 to 7:30 pm at the Bob Mickle Community Center at 1620 Pleasant St in Des Moines.

Friday, September 19:

From the Interfaith Alliance of Iowa:

Crossroads is a program of The Interfaith Alliance of Iowa and is an opportunity to learn, to participate in civil dialogue, and to discuss issues at the intersection of religion & politics.

Friday, September 19

Brad Clark, Campaign Director, One Iowa

Fairness for All Families: Why Marriage Equality Matters

Today in Iowa , thousands of committed gay and lesbian couples are doing the hard work of building strong families yet lack the basic legal protections they need to take care of each other and their families.  These Iowa families need and deserve the security, dignity, and legal safety net of protections and responsibilities that marriage provides.  Join us to hear more about marriage equality in Iowa !

The Crossroads luncheon is Friday, September 19 from 11:45 am – 1 pm at Plymouth Congregational Church, 42nd & Ingersoll Avenue, Des Moines.

Reservations are required to attend Crossroads and must be received by noon on Tuesday, September 16.  Cost is $8 and is payable at the door.

For more information or to make a reservation, call (515) 279-8715 or email tiaiowa@dwx.com.

Saturday, September 20:

The Iowa Citizen Action Network is participating in a nationwide canvassing effort to knock on a million doors for peace. MoveOn.org is also involved with this effort. If you’ve got two hours to spare on Saturday, you can sign up to get a list of 40 new or infrequent voters in your neighborhood. You can do this individually wherever you live, or sign up to join groups that will be meeting in Des Moines, Ames and Waterloo. More details are after the jump.  Contact ICAN Organizer Sue Dinsdale at sdinsdale@iowacan.org or 515-277-5077 ext. 14 or go to milliondoorsforpeace.org

From the Sierra Club:

Why our Modern Food System is Not Sustainable

September 20, Ames area

Join us on Saturday, September 20, as we celebrate together the efforts and achievements of fellow Iowa Sierrans and conservation activists at the Story County Conservation Center in McFarland Park north of Ames. Frederick L. Kirschenmann, a Distinguished Fellow, Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture will be the featured speaker. His presentation, “Why our Modern Food System is not Sustainable,” will offer Fred’s unique perspective on the challenges and opportunities we face in balancing an agricultural economy with the protection of our natural heritage. The banquet begins with a social time and silent auction at 11:00 a.m. followed at noon by lunch, Dr. Kirschenmann and an awards ceremony. There are also opportunities to hike the many trails in the park. The event will be catered by renowned Lucallan’s Restaurant, featuring local foods. The cost is $35 per person.

Please RSVP to Neila Seaman, 3839 Merle Hay Road, Suite 280, Des Moines, Iowa, 50310 or Iowa.chapter@sierraclub.org or 515-277-8868.

The Latino Heritage Festival runs Saturday and Sunday in Blank Park on SW 9th by the Zoo in Des Moines. The Polk County Democrats need volunteers to help with the booth, especially anyone who speaks Spanish.  Ideally, we would like to have at least one Spanish speaking person on every shift. The hours are 11am to 7pm Saturday, September 20th and 11am to 7pm Sunday, September 21st.  Any time you are available to help during those hours would be appreciated.  To volunteer, please call Tamyra at 515-285-1800.

Johnson County Heritage Trust Autumn Celebration

The 2nd annual “Under a Cider Moon . . . a Celebration of Autumn with the Johnson County Heritage Trust” fundraising event will be held Saturday, September 20, at 6 p.m at Dick Schwab’s round barn located at 2501 Sugar Bottom Road near Solon, Iowa.  There will be a live and silent auction, live music and local food and beverages. Proceeds will assist JCHT identify, preserve and manage land with significant environmental value in Johnson County.  For additional information visit www.jcht.org or call 1-319-857-4741.  RSVP today by mailing your check or donation to Johnson County Heritage Trust, P. O. Box 2523, Iowa City, Iowa 522440-2523 or by calling credit card information to 1-319-857-4741.

Climate Bicycle Ride

Begins September 20, New York to DC

We need Iowans to join us for a bike ride, to promote renewable energy, and getting the word out to people passionate about this issue. It is a fun event – a five day bike tour from New York City to Washington D.C. in September. Along the route, expert speakers will address the riders on the challenges of and solutions to global warming, and the ride will end with a rally and a lobbying session in the nation’s capital. The website is http://www.climateride.org/abo… We currently don’t have any Iowa riders. Our message would be stronger if we had representation from your state. For questions, call David Kroodsma, 413.658.4086.  

Via Iowa Politics, I learned that the Iowa Democratic Party has created a new website called McCain vs. Iowa:

This website will be strictly issues-focused and will be updated regularly with Iowa-specific information to be used by Iowans as they make their decision come November. Today’s rollout focuses on Senator McCain’s attacks on Iowa biofuels and the Farm Bill. Future rollouts will include issues such as renewable energy, health care, and taxes, to name a few.

Click the link to read the rest of the press release announcing the IDP’s new site.

Meanwhile, Neil Sinhababu, who has also blogged under the name Neil the Ethical Werewolf at Ezra Klein’s place and Kevin Drum’s Political Animal blog, launched a fabulous new blog this week called War or Car? Neil explains the concept:

Welcome to War or Car !

According to Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz and Harvard public finance professor Linda Bilmes, the total cost of the Iraq War will be over $3 trillion.  That’s enough to buy a new Toyota Prius for every household in America. Here are some other things we could’ve done for the price of the Iraq War.  

You’ll want to bookmark this one, because Neil will be updating it every day between now and the November election. So far, the posts explain how for the cost of the Iraq War, we could have

–covered the land area of Vermont and New Hampshire in gold leaf;

–powered a jukebox since the time of the dinosaurs; or

–supplied the people of Ireland with beer for 1,000 years.

Neil is a great blogger, and this will be a fun site to watch.

I’ve been enjoying La Vida Locavore, the community blog for people interested in food and agriculture issues launched by orangeclouds115 last month. You can find good recipes and advice on kitchen gear as well as the latest news related to salmonella outbreaks, genetically-modified foods, growth hormones in meat and dairy products, etc. I highly recommend you check in from time to time.

The EENR progressive blog, founded by a bunch of Edwards supporters several months ago, is going strong. It’s a good blog to check to keep up with news on some good progressive candidates for Congress, as well as substantive issues that got crowded out on other blogs during the presidential primaries.  

As Memorial Day nears and the death toll continues to climb in Iraq, most Democrats are united in our determination to extract our troops from Iraq safely and swiftly.  As important as withdrawing our troops is how we care for the troops upon their return home.  Yesterday I had the pleasure of speaking with retired veterans at the Iowa Veterans Home in Marshalltown about exactly that – how America should, and can, honor our veterans.  

Yesterday I received another four-page direct-mail piece from the Boswell campaign. Like one I got last week, this was paid for by Boswell for Congress and not the U.S. treasury. Also like the last mailer, it casts Boswell as someone who stands up to George Bush–in this case, on the war in Iraq.

The front page features a large photo of a young child clutching an American flag and peeking over the shoulder of the man in uniform who is holding him. The text to the left of the photo reads:

In 5 years…

_____________

4,000 killed

30,000 wounded

$1 trillion spent

_____________

It’s time to end

the war and

take care of

our veterans…

The top line of that text is in red–the rest is in large black type.

Page 2 of the mailer features a large photo of Boswell, with this text in large type:

Congressman Leonard Boswell

is working to:

Help our veterans.

End the war.

Page three has two smaller photos on the right side; one of Boswell speaking at a press conference, the other showing him talking with two veterans. The text on the left side of the page reads:

Standing Up to George Bush

Congressman Boswell voted five times to create a timetable for withdrawing our troops from Iraq. In five years of war, 4,000 soldiers have lost their lives and 30,000 have been wounded. A trillion dollars has been spent causing incalculable damage to our economy and creating an historic national debt for our children and our grandchildren. Leonard Boswell is working to end the war that George Bush started.

Standing Up for Our Veterans

A 20-year veteran who understands the true cost of war, Leonard Boswell has worked tirelessly on behalf of our veterans. He voted for the largest VA funding increase in history and fought to improve health care access for our wounded soldiers. He wrote a bill to provide better mental health care for our men and women in uniform and is working to bring the troops home every day. He authored and passed the Joshua Omvig Veterans Suicide Prevention Ac.

Leonard Boswell is Taking on

George Bush for the Changes We Need

For more information: www.boswellforcongress.com

Democratic Primary – June 3rd

The last page has a small photo of Boswell talking with a man and a woman, and a small photo of him with his wife Dody. Across the top in large print, it reads:

Congressman Leonard Boswell

Working to End the War and Help Our Veterans

In smaller type on the right-hand side are the following bullet points:

A 20-year veteran – served two tours in Vietnam

Voted five times for a timetable to withdraw the troops from Iraq *

Voted for the largest VA funding increase in history

Fighting to improve health care access for wounded soldiers

Working to provide better mental health care for our veterans

Authored the Joshua Omvig Veterans Suicide Prevention Act

In very small print next to an asterisk below the photos are the numbers of the bills referred to in the bullet point on withdrawing troops from Iraq: H.R. 1591: RC 186, RC 265, RC 276; H.R. 2956: RC 624; H.R. 4156: RC 1108

At the bottom there’s contact information for the campaign and “Paid for by Boswell for Congress.”

Not long ago I wrote about the earmarks secured by the Iowa delegation in 2007. I commented,

I also get a little tired of self-appointed taxpayer watchdogs expressing righteous indignation about this or that project that got a few hundred thousand dollars from the federal government. The Pig Book shows that the more than 11,000 earmarks in 2007 accounted for about $17.2 billion in federal spending.

Meanwhile, the U.S. spent several times that amount on the continuing war in Iraq in 2007, with little to show for it besides more American casualties.

Today bonddad wrote a great piece called We Can’t Afford The War Anymore. Click through to see the graphics, but here is the key paragraph:

According to the Congressional Budget office, this war has cost $752 billion dollars.  Let that figure sink in — $752 billion dollars.  And it’s getting more expensive.  According to the same report, the yearly increase in costs are increasing at a high rate.  In 2003 total appropriations for the war were $76 billion.  In 2007 they were $165 billion.  And the increase in cost is largely from the ongoing operations.  Operation and Maintenance costs were $46 billion in 2003 and $92 billion in 2007 — a doubling of costs within 5 years.  In addition, procurement expenses over the same period of time increased from $10 billion to $51 billion.  So, the longer this war progresses, the more expensive it gets.

The Iraq War cost nearly ten times as much in 2007 as all earmarks secured by all members of Congress combined.

Remember that next time some Republican rubber-stamp for George Bush’s Iraq policy complains about wasteful government spending.

If you still don’t believe that the idea of Barack Obama as a consistent opponent of the Iraq War is a “fairy tale,” read this diary by Marcy Winograd:

By dusk on Wednesday, the California Obama campaign had purged almost all progressive anti-war activists from its delegate candidate lists.  Names of candidates, people who had filed to run to represent Obama at the August Democratic Party National Convention, disappeared, not one by one, but hundreds at a time, from the Party web site listing the eligibles.  The list of Obama delegate hopefuls in one northern California congressional district went from a robust 100 to an anemic 23, while in southern California, the list in Congressman Waxman’s district almost slipped out of sight, plunging from a high of 91 candidates to 17.  Gone were strong women with independent political bases.  

Who was left standing, still in the running for the Sunday delegate caucuses? The bundlers and their girlfriends, the men and women who skirt campaign finance laws by bundling cash, a bundle of $2,000 here and a bundle of $2,000 there — and some, though certainly not all, of the Obama precinct captains, loyalists from day one.

If CA is any example, progressive leaders in Penn better watch their back.

In anticipation of Sunday’s populist delegate caucuses, the Obama campaign deleted 950 from its list of 1700 delegate hopefuls. The Clinton campaign only knocked off 50 of their 950 delegate candidats.

[…]

Who did the Obama campaign kick to the curb?  Brian Leubitz, a Calitics blogger with a mighty pen, Tad Daley, former policy advisor to Cranston and Kucinich and a career fellow with the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, Alan Toy, a disabled rights activist and Chair of the American Civil Liberties Union chapter in Santa Monica, and a nameless, yet tireless grassroots volunteer who toiled nights making precinct maps …. and me.

Marcy Winograd.

In case you’re wondering where you’ve heard Winograd’s name before, she was the peace activist who challenged Congresswoman Jane Harman in the Democratic primary for her district in 2006. Harman won that primary by a 2-1 margin, but the challenge did seem to improve her voting behavior.

As Winograd mentioned, one of the bloggers at the California progressive community blog Calitics was among those purged from the delegate candidate list. Calitics already put up a bunch of links to news reports about the purge of anti-war activists from the Obama delegate lists:

I just spent about 40 minutes at a bar in Oakland talking with two absolutely crushed Obama supporters who got cut from the delegate list in CA-9. They couldn’t believe what happened. And they want answers.

I guess they weren’t the change they’ve been waiting for after all.

When will the Obama campaign remove Colin Kahl, the guy who wants to keep 60,000 to 80,000 U.S. troops in Iraq at least through the end of 2010, from his position as coordinator of Obama’s working group on Iraq?

UPDATE: The Obama campaign caved after a public outcry:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008…

It still worries me that their instinct was to get peace activists off the Obama delegate lists.

Barack Obama says he will withdraw U.S. combat troops from Iraq within 16 months if elected president. He was recently endorsed by Bill Richardson, who advocated keeping no residual troops in Iraq (combat or otherwise).

So I was intrigued by this story from the New York Sun about a confidential policy paper written by an adviser to Obama:

http://www.nysun.com/national/…

The paper, obtained by The New York Sun, was written by Colin Kahl for the center-left Center for a New American Security. In “Stay on Success: A Policy of Conditional Engagement,” Mr. Kahl writes that through negotiations with the Iraqi government “the U.S. should aim to transition to a sustainable over-watch posture (of perhaps 60,000-80,000 forces) by the end of 2010 (although the specific timelines should be the byproduct of negotiations and conditions on the ground).”

Mr. Kahl is the day-to-day coordinator of the Obama campaign’s working group on Iraq. A shorter and less detailed version of this paper appeared on the center’s Web site as a policy brief.

Both Mr. Kahl and a senior Obama campaign adviser reached yesterday said the paper does not represent the campaign’s Iraq position.

I would like a stronger statement from Obama that he categorically rules out keeping tens of thousands of troops in Iraq through the first two years of his administration.

Otherwise Bill Clinton will be proven correct: the idea of Obama as a consistent opponent of the Iraq war is a “fairy tale.”

Take a minute and a half out of your life to watch this video:

The Obama supporters on the blogs are way too complacent about how tough it will be to beat McCain, by the way. This is one of the lines we will need to push to get the job done.

On Bill Richardson's recent push to restore the war in Iraq to the most prominent issue among the Democrats running for President, Chris Bowers writes:

While I know that everyone in American politics is supposed to have some ulterior motive behind everything they do in public, everything in my experience has indicated to me that Richardson's position on Iraq is genuine. Richardson isn't alone, either. The latest CNN poll on Iraq showed public sentiment for total withdrawal sharply rising to 39%, a clear plurality nationwide. Further, residual forces wouldn't even be an issue in the campaign were it not for Richardson. No matter what happens when the voting starts, and no matter what you may think of Richardson otherwise, that is an important contribution to the campaign. And yes, it is one reason not to be cynical about American politics.

Through his campaign stops, press releases, TV ads and postings on blogs, Richardson has been relentless in raising the issue of Iraq and forcing the media and other candidates to not ignore it.

THIS PRIMARY IS ABOUT OCTOBER 2002 AND THE WAR VOTE BY EDWARDS AND CLINTON

Why Obama? This is the main reason I am voting for Barack: because he had the good sense to be against the War in Iraq in 2002, calling it a “Dumb War”. Edwards meanwhile co-sponsored the Authorization of Force Resolution and said on the floor: “We know Saddam has WMD”.

Here is the devastating video of Edwards' floor speech to send us to war on a lie:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…

What was Obama's speech on Iraq a month later? He called it a dumb war. Here's a video interview. Who had better judgement? Who was more for peace and diplomacy? Who is the true diplomacy-first leader? Barack Obama:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…

Here is Hillary, trusting BUSH all the way:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…

Think it's pretty clear who is a true leader instead of a calculating politician.

And Clinton? She is even worse than Edwards, not reading the NIE again, not even the summary! And then she even did something Joe LIEberman did not do, definitively link al Quada and Saddam:

HILLARY'S WAR According to Senate aides, because Clinton was not yet on the Armed Services Committee, she did not have anyone working for her with the security clearances needed to read the entire N.I.E. and the other highly classified reports that pertained to Iraq. She could have done the reading herself. Senators were able to access the N.I.E. at two secure locations in the Capitol complex. Nonetheless, only six senators personally read the report, according to a 2005 television interview with Senator Jay Rockefeller, Democrat of West Virginia and then the vice chairman of the intelligence panel. Earlier this year, on the presidential campaign trail in New Hampshire, Clinton was confronted by a woman who had traveled from New York to ask her if she had read the intelligence report. According to Eloise Harper of ABC News, Clinton responded that she had been briefed on it.

''Did you read it?'' the woman screamed. Clinton replied that she had been briefed, though she did not say by whom. The question of whether Clinton took the time to read the N.I.E. report is critically important. Indeed, one of Clinton's Democratic colleagues, Bob Graham, the Florida senator who was then the chairman of the intelligence committee, said he voted against the resolution on the war, in part, because he had read the complete N.I.E. report. Graham said he found that it did not persuade him that Iraq possessed W.M.D. As a result, he listened to Bush's claims more skeptically. ''I was able to apply caveat emptor,'' Graham, who has since left the Senate, observed in 2005. He added regretfully, ''Most of my colleagues could not.''

On Tuesday, Oct. 8, 2002, Senate Democrats, including Clinton, held a caucus over lunch on the second floor of the Capitol. There, Graham says he ''forcefully'' urged his colleagues to read the complete 90-page N.I.E. before casting such a monumental vote. In her own remarks on the Senate floor on Oct. 10, 2002, Clinton noted the existence of ''differing opinions within this body.'' Then she went on to offer a lengthy catalog of Saddam Hussein's crimes. She cited unnamed ''intelligence reports'' showing that between 1998 and 2002 ''Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile-delivery capability and his nuclear program.'' Both the public and secret intelligence estimates on Iraq contained such analysis, but the complete N.I.E. report also included other views. A dissent by the State Department's intelligence arm concluded — correctly, as it turned out — that Iraq was not rebuilding its nuclear program.

Clinton continued, accusing Iraq's leader of giving ''aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members.'' This statement fit squarely within the ominous warning she issued the day after Sept. 11.

Clinton's linking of Iraq's leader and Al Qaeda, however, was unsupported by the conclusions of the N.I.E. and other secret intelligence reports that were available to senators before the vote. Indeed, the one document that supported Clinton's statement, a public letter from the C.I.A. to Senator Graham, mentioned ''growing indications of a relationship'' between Al Qaeda and Iraq but acknowledged that those indications were based on ''sources of varying reliability.'' In fact, the classified reports available to all senators at the time found that Iraq was not allied with Al Qaeda, and that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden harbored feelings of deep mistrust and enmity for each other.

…

Nevertheless, on the sensitive issue of collaboration between Al Qaeda and Iraq, Senator Clinton found herself adopting the same argument that was being aggressively pushed by the administration. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and other administration officials had repeated their claim frequently, and by early October 2002, two out of three Americans believed that Saddam Hussein was connected to the Sept. 11 attacks. By contrast, most of the other Senate Democrats, even those who voted for the war authorization, did not make the Qaeda connection in their remarks on the Senate floor. One Democratic senator who voted for the war resolution and praised President Bush for his course of ''moderation and deliberation,'' Joe Biden of Delaware, actively assailed the reports of Al Qaeda in Iraq, calling them ''much exaggerated.'' Senator Dianne Feinstein of California described any link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda as ''tenuous.'' The Democratic senator who came closest to echoing Clinton's remarks about Hussein's supposed assistance to Al Qaeda was Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut. Yet even Lieberman noted that ''the relationship between Al Qaeda and Saddam's regime is a subject of intense debate within the intelligence community.''

For most of those who had served in the Clinton administration, the supposed link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda had come to seem baseless. ''We all knew it was ,'' said Kenneth Pollack, who was a national-security official under President Clinton and a leading proponent of overthrowing Saddam Hussein. Pollack says he discussed Iraq with Clinton before her vote in 2002, but he won't disclose his advice.

The Saddam-Al Qaeda link, so aggressively pushed by the Bush administration, was later debunked as false. So how could Clinton, named in 2006 by The Washingtonian magazine as the ''brainiest'' senator, have gotten such a critical point wrong? Referring to the larger question of her support for the authorization, Clinton said in February of this year, ''My vote was a sincere vote based on the facts and assurances that I had at the time.''

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/f…

This is the most important difference in this primary: the Iraq War Vote.

We elected a Democratic Congress to stop the war, and it's not happening.  I regret very much that those senators running for president weren't even there to cast their vote, they were out campaigning.  We gave the president $70 billion more to continue this war without any restraint or timetable to reduce the troops – it's basically a blank check.

That's what Bill Richardson said yesterday in New Hampshire.

Will Clinton, Edwards or Obama promptly bring the U.S. occupation of Iraq to end?  None of them have made an iron clad promise to bring our troops home.  Instead, all want to keep their options open and refuse to pledge to bring home all U.S. troops from Iraq by 2013. 

You have served magnificently. Now you are coming home.

Isn't that what we want to hear our next President say?  That's what Bill Richardson said yesterday in Iowa.

Have Obama, Clinton or Edwards ever said this?  They refuse to pledge to bring home all U.S. troops, even by 2013.  2013 is too late.  Why settle for a President that can't figure out today that the war is a disaster and unequivocally calls for the withdrawal of our troops?

Richardson criticized other candidates and the news media for shifting focus away from the war:

Perhaps they think that because fewer of our troops have died lately that Americans don't care anymore. Well, we do and I dare the media to tell the families of the 37 troops who were killed last month that this issue doesn't deserve front-page coverage.

Bill Richardson is goal-oriented, assertive and confident.  He has served as a Congressman, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Secretary of Energy and is in his second term as Governor of New Mexico after a landslide re-election victory in November 2006.  

Here are five of many reasons why I believe Richardson possesses the experience, vision and leadership skills to be a great President:

1.  A Bright Vision for America
2.  An Ironclad Promise to Promptly End the U.S. Occupation of Iraq
3.  A Bold Agenda To Address The Pressing Challenges Facing Our Nation and Planet
4.  The White House and A Landslide Victory for Democrats Nationwide in 2008
5.  Comprehensive Immigration Reform In Accordance With the Values Upon Which Our Country Was Founded

Hillary Clinton's plan for ending the war is weak and imprecise.  She refuses to commit to bring all of our troops home by the end of her first term in office. Clinton's military and diplomatic advisers believe our invasion of Iraq was justified and a military solution exits for resolving the war. Clinton is not demonstrating the qualities of leadership we need in our next President to end the war in Iraq.

I received this correspondence today from a soldier I met through myspace who is currently in Iraq.  Please feel free to repost and use.

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

            Almost two years ago a bold and courageous man stepped forward, and amongst the political maneuvering and jostling, presented an in-depth political solution for Iraq.  Though an intense political whiplash was sure to follow, Joe Biden put policy before politics and called for a federalist system of government to be instituted in Iraq.  For the past several months, Sen. Biden has championed his plan saying that the only way to end the cycle of self-sustaining sectarian violence is to separate the fighting sanctions and create three semi-autonomous regions.  Each region, one for the Sunnis, on for the Shiites, and one for the Kurds, will be granted strong, local control.  The people of the states will finally have control over the issues they have been killing one another over for the past 2,000 years.  Biden believes that once local control is granted for issues such as marriage and divorce laws, police organizations and education the violence will subside.  A limited central government will then be able to function with three main purposes: control the boarders, deal with foreign relations and spread the oil wealth fairly based on population.  Just as expected, the criticism was harsh.  Many oppose the plan, saying it simply will not work; federalism in this day in age is not right for Iraq.  People argue: “We shouldn’t impose federalism on the Iraqis.  They already have an elected government; just let it be.  We have no right to force this on a nation’s people.  No one supports the plan anyway.  Biden is simply misguided.”  It is not at all uncommon to here people say, “Sen. Biden’s plan is going nowhere.  The Iraqis don’t support it, the American people don’t support it, and even Biden’s colleagues don’t support it.  What is he thinking?”  Though these points seem valid from afar, they become very hollow when examined more closely.

            While a certain someone (George W. Bush) still refutes the capabilities of the Senator’s proposal, many other big names support the idea of federalism in Iraq.  From big foot columnists, to United State Senators, and to even Iraqi leaders themselves, support has swelled for Joe Biden and his political solution for Iraq.  At one time the argument that the Biden plan had no support could have been looked at as a decent point.  Today it has turned into a bold face lie.  Countless endorsements have been issued in just a short time.

Many top columnists and big names in the media business have come out to support Joe Biden’s political solution.  George Packer has recently written an extensive post in “The New Yorker”, praising Biden heavily.  He can be quoted as saying “Federalism is the most realistic political option available”, and “I’m glad that Biden is pushing his idea…it’s the only exception to paralysis and polarization in Washington.”  Furthermore, Edward P. Johnson and Michael O’Hanlon wrote a piece in USA Today on Oct. 5^th.  Within the piece they note that, “Rather than continuing to place all our hope in Baghdad, it is time to do what Sen. Joseph Biden (DE) and a majority of his fellow senators have been pushing of late: build on that local progress by advising Iraqis to consider a form of federalism.”  The praise continues with people like Michael Hirsh of Newsweek and Randy Scholfield of the Wichita Eagle.  Hirsh has supported a federalist solution time and time again.  On April 26^th, 2007, Hirsh stated in an article of Newsweek that, “Joe Biden is dead right on Iraq.”  Continuing, Hirsh had other kind words calling Biden himself, “…far and away the most experienced foreign-policy hand among the Democratic candidates…”  People like Hirsh and Packer and O’Hanlon are just a few of the many big feet who are coming around to the conclusion that Biden is in fact “dead right”!

Amongst the growing support, a groundbreaking decision was made on September 28^th, of this year.   The United States Senate, for the first time since the war began, voted in a bipartisan fashion to rebuke the Bush Administration’s policy in Iraq and said a new track must be taken.  By a vote of 75-23 the Senate voted to pass Joe Biden’s political solution in Iraq and by doing so said that George W. Bush is wrong and will be wrong if he follows the current strategy.  Joe Biden was the first person, on either side, to bring both Democrats a Republicans together.  With the help of 49 Democrats and 26 Republicans, Sen. Biden told the President to stop this ridiculous policy and move in the direction of federalism.  Proponent of the plan, Sen. Barbara Boxer has said, “Our chairman has come forward with a vision of how this thing can end up in a place where people will stop killing each other, and yet keep together the country of Iraq, to do the things a country has to do.”  Other current and former Congressional leaders agree.  Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS), has supported federalism saying “Federalism is already at work…This will work.”  Brownback feels so strongly about that he helped Biden make history once again as the two of them, Republican and Democrat, cruised the Presidential campaign trail together, both as candidates and held a forum to discuss and support federalism in Iraq. While the political atmosphere back home is important, the security of Iraq will ultimately come down the progress made in their government itself.  Thankfully, a consensus may in fact be in the works.

The most important component of any political solution for any nation in any circumstance is the acceptance of the nation’s people.  It is argued that America cannot force any proposal on Iraq.  People say it is not America’s place to change the dynamics of the nation.  Combatants of federalism say if the Iraqis and their leaders don’t support it we can’t act on it.  Well, I agree whole-heartedly with them.  We ought not force anything on anyone; the catch to that however, is that Iraq has come around to the idea of federalism.  It has been adopted into their Constitution.  Leaders of that nation support the idea.  It has been endorsed by countless Iraqi leaders.  To have a consensus in Iraq is perhaps the most monumental feat anyone could have accomplished and Sen. Biden did so with his political solution.  President of Iraq, Jalal Talabani, has endorsed the plan saying, “I agree with Senator Biden. I think the resolution passed by the Senate is a very good one. Those who criticize it didn’t read it carefully. If read carefully, one finds that every article insists on the unity, security, prosperity and national reconciliation of Iraq.”  He went on by asking “his brothers of Iraq” to work together to institute the plan and to live by it.  Those who combat the plan have not only read it, but they clearly have not heard the Iraqis themselves speak!  Another Iraqi politician, Ammar al-Hakim, Supreme Iraqi Islamic Council leader, has reiterated support for federalism recently by saying, “Federalism is one way to accomplish this [peace] goal.”  

Though it is always great to have the kind words of columnists and the endorsements of Senators, the most lucrative of all backings comes from Iraq itself.  As the nation embraces Senator Biden and his plan for peace, it will become easier and easier to act on his plan.  People are supporting the plan.  People are supporting Joe Biden.  People understand that the only way to end this war responsibly, without it metastasizing in to a regional war, is to listen to the Senator and introduce federalism to Iraq.  Joe Biden has the vision and foresight to lead this nation into a brighter future.  He has the experience to hit the ground running in 2009.  And above all else, he has the political will to introduce a tough piece of legislation to end an atrocity.  Though not originally popular, Joe Biden has swayed Democrats and Republicans alike and convinced them, like any competent President could, that his path is the right path; federalism is the right path.  Joe Biden is the right man for 2008!

Today, Chase Martyn of the Iowa Independent reviewed a major policy speech by Bill Richardson earlier this week on how to improve the welfare of the human race and our environment.  Martyn is no supporter of Richardson, noting “I expected would be ridden with gaffes, pie-in-the-sky policy proposals, and poll-tested mumbo jumbo. Having not seen Richardson stump in person for a period of two months, I had no idea what I was in for.”

Martyn came away highly impressed.  Martyn described Richardson's speech as “bold and informative.  . . . I dare say he sounded presidential.”

In his speech, Richardson set forth  a global agenda to address the welfare of the human race, linking climate change, poverty, international disease and war.  Richardson stated:  “A hungry world will also hunger for scapegoats. A thirsty world will thirst for revenge. A world in crisis will be a world of anger and violence and terrorism.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Only Richardson provided a direct and unambiguous answer:  

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

Link