Dan Guild expects one of the Democratic candidates to surge in the closing days, most likely Elizabeth Warren or Amy Klobuchar. -promoted by Laura Belin

Ten days before the 2016 Iowa caucuses, I wrote a piece here entitled Front-runners Beware.

Four years later, there is not one front-runner, but four. Importantly, New Hampshire seems just as close. As I wrote last month, the winner of Iowa can expect a 12-point bounce in New Hampshire.

The simple truth is the winner in Iowa is very likely to win the New Hampshire primary eight days later. And no Democrat has won Iowa and New Hampshire when both were contested and lost the nomination.

The history with tables is below, but in summary:

What Dan Guild found after analyzing decades of Iowa caucus polling from this point in the election cycle. -promoted by Laura Belin

For candidates struggling nationally, Iowa is the last, great hope.

I have been on campaigns like those. You draw hope from stories of conversion. A vice-chair of a town committee announces their support, or a canvasser talks to someone who just converted from the front-runner to you. You think, just another debate, or a new set of ads. Then one fine morning, a poll will show…

Many thanks to Jordan Oster, a public affairs consultant and clean energy advocate from Des Moines, for this review of a remarkable Iowa caucus campaign. -promoted by desmoinesdem

January 3 marked the tenth anniversary of Barack Obama’s victory in the 2008 Iowa Democratic Precinct Caucuses.

Like a number of supporters and former staffers, I took to social media earlier this week to share photos and memories from his campaign. You can check out the full Twitter thread here.

As this anniversary approached, I began to gather photos and recollections of the Obama campaign. The Iowa caucuses have long captivated me, and I have tried to do my part to preserve and keep its unique history alive. A camera is usually a required accessory when I attend presidential events, and I have filled many memory cards with photos of presidential candidates since I first got involved with campaigns in 2003.

Continuing a six-part series. Part 1 covered basic elements of the caucus system, part 2 explained why so many Iowans can’t or won’t attend their precinct caucus, and part 3 covered Democratic caucus math, which sometimes produces strange results.

Axiom of Iowa politics: the key to winning the caucuses is to “organize, organize, organize, and then get hot at the end.” Although paid staff do much of the ground work, a successful presidential campaign needs a large number of volunteers at the precinct level. I haven’t been engaged as a volunteer this cycle, because for the first time in my life, I remained undecided until shortly before the caucuses. But I spent many hours trying to turn out neighbors for John Kerry in 2004 and for John Edwards in 2008. During the past thirteen years, I’ve talked with hundreds of Iowa Democratic activists who volunteered locally for presidential candidates.

This post focuses on how precinct captains can influence outcomes on caucus night.

Thanks to fladem for this historical perspective on late shifts in Iowa caucus-goers’ preferences. If you missed his earlier posts, check out A deep dive into Iowa caucus History and Iowa polling 45 days out: Let the buyer REALLY beware. -promoted by desmoinesdem

This is a continuation of an article I wrote about Iowa polling in November. At the time I noted how unpredictable the Iowa caucuses are. This article will to look at the last 48 hours. There are two lessons you can draw:

1. Front-runners beware

1. Expect someone to come from nowhere

Thanks to fladem for another in-depth look at Iowa caucus polling. In case you missed it, read his first post in this series: A Deep Dive into Iowa Caucus History. -promoted by desmoinesdem

The Des Moines Register launched Jason Noble’s ten-part podcast about the Iowa caucuses last week. You can listen to the “Three Tickets” at the Register’s website or download the episodes through iTunes or Stitcher. After telling his own Iowa caucus “origin story” (hearing Howard Dean sing part of an Outkast song on a campaign bus in 2003), Noble devoted most of the first episode (“Peak Caucus”) to the 2008 Democratic contest. Roughly 240,000 Iowans showed up for Democratic precinct caucuses on January 3, mostly to support Barack Obama, John Edwards, or Hillary Clinton. Their numbers more than doubled the roughly 119,000 Iowans who caucused for Republican candidates the same night and nearly doubled the previous record-high Democratic Iowa caucus turnout, set in 2004.

Bleeding Heartland covered the 2008 caucuses extensively. Even so, “Peak Caucus” recalled some moments I had mostly forgotten and got me thinking about other aspects of the campaign I remembered well. So Noble succeeded in motivating this political junkie to listen to the rest of the “Three Tickets” series.

A few reactions to the first episode are after the jump.

The U.S. Department of Justice announced today that former presidential candidate John Edwards will not be tried again on charges related to conspiracy, falsifying campaign statements or accepting allegedly illegal campaign contributions.

After deliberating for nine days, a federal jury in North Carolina acquitted John Edwards of one criminal charge and could not agree on a verdict regarding the other five charges. Today U.S. District Court Judge Catherine Eagles declared a mistrial.

A grand jury indicted former Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards on June 3 on six counts of conspiracy, illegal campaign contributions, and false statements. Read the federal government’s case against Johnny Reid Edwards here (pdf). The charges revolve around more than $900,000 used to support Edwards’ mistress and a campaign staffer who claimed paternity of Edwards’ child. Prosecutors say that money, provided by the late Fred Baron and the heiress Bunny Mellon, should have been considered campaign contributions, in which case they were way over the legal limit for a presidential campaign.

Edwards looks ready to fight the charges in court. He told journalists in a brief statement that he “did wrong” but “did not break the law” and “never ever thought that I was breaking the law.” Federal election law is unusual in that violations are only considered criminal if the offending politician knew he or she was committing a crime. So prosecutors will have to prove that the gifts in question should be considered campaign contributions, that Baron and Mellon would not have made those gifts if Edwards had not been a candidate, and that Edwards knew he was breaking the law by submitting false reports to the Federal Election Commission. Edwards will contend that he had a longstanding friendship with Baron (who is deceased) and Mellon, and that they would have helped him conceal his extramarital affair from his family in any case.

So far legal analysts aren’t impressed by the prosecution’s case: see comments from Richard Pildes, Rick Hasen and Jeralyn Merritt. A 2002 FEC opinion involving a $25,000 loan to pay a divorce lawyer representing a member of Congress may support the Edwards defense. Looks like Bleeding Heartland user ragbrai08 was right to say Edwards should wait to see the indictment rather than cut a deal with prosecutors.

The Washington Post editorial board (never fans of Edwards) criticized the “novel application of the law” underlying this prosecution, adding, “It is troubling that the Justice Department would choose to devote its scarce resources to pursuing this questionable case.” Considering that no one has been prosecuted for systemic foreclosure fraud, making torture official U.S. policy or various other abuses, one does wonder why the Department of Justice has gone down this path. My theory is that the U.S. attorney in North Carolina is looking for a popular case to boost a future political career. The DOJ doesn’t mind the media circus and may even welcome the distraction from more pressing national issues.

This is an open thread. What’s on your mind this weekend? Bleeding Heartland readers of a certain age will remember Lawrence Eagleburger and Dr. Jack Kevorkian, who both passed away this week.

UPDATE: J. Andrew Curliss and Joseph Neff report more details about the plea bargaining negotiations preceding the Edwards indictments. Merritt thinks Edwards was right to turn down the government’s offers and predicts that there will be further negotiations before court proceedings begin.

James Hill of ABC News reported this week,

The United States Department of Justice has green-lighted the prosecution of former presidential candidate John Edwards for alleged violations of campaign laws while he tried to cover up an extra-marital affair, ABC News has learned. […]

Edwards has been the focus of a lengthy federal investigation focusing on hundreds of thousands of dollars allegedly provided by two wealthy supporters. The government will contend those were illegal donations that ultimately went to support and seclude his mistress, Rielle Hunter.

Some unnamed sources suggest Edwards’ legal team is working on a plea agreement so that he would not have to stand trial. But a high-powered attorney for Edwards, former White House counsel Greg Craig, sounds ready to fight, asserting that “not one penny from the Edwards campaign was involved,” there is “no civil or criminal precedent for such a prosecution,” and the “Justice Department has wasted millions of dollars and thousands of hours on a matter more appropriately a topic for the Federal Election Commission to consider, not a criminal court.” Ben Smith reports for Politico that Craig

is said to be pushing for a trial and arguing that prosecutors will not be able to win in the vague and untested terrain of campaign-finance law – as he made clear in a defiant statement to reporters Wednesday. Edwards’s longtime friend and lawyer Wade Smith, a fellow veteran of the North Carolina courts, is said to be more inclined to settle. And Edwards himself appears, associates say, to be sorely tempted to take his chances in an arena that made his career and his fortune.

“John needs money. He needs to work, so he can’t give up his law license,” said a source who knows Edwards but who requested anonymity. “He thinks, ‘I get in that courtroom, I get in front of a North Carolina jury…’ “

For the sake of Edwards’ three children under age 18, I would advise him to settle in order to avoid jail time. But I don’t know the legal terrain and have no idea what his chances would be to escape conviction. If conducting an affair during a presidential campaign is any guide, Edwards isn’t risk-averse. Then again, Craig may just be posturing to negotiate a better plea deal for his client.

As far as I know, the money allegedly used to cover up Edwards’ affair came from large donations to his One America Committee (a PAC)–not his 2008 presidential campaign funds. I don’t know whether that makes any difference as a point of law.

Share any relevant thoughts in this thread.

UPDATE: Defense attorney Jeralyn Merritt discusses the case here:

If the U.S. Attorney is demanding a plea to a felony count, I suspect John Edwards will fight. I hope he does. Regardless of your opinion of John Edwards and his personal life, he’s the sole parent now to two young children. Mistreating a donation as a gift (particularly if you relied on the advice of your legal counsel in doing so), when there is a paucity of court decisions defining the difference between them, seems over the top.

If Edwards is offering to plead to a misdemeanor and probation, the Government should grab his proffered ounce of flesh and forego insisting on a pound. The only reason to demand a felony is to justify the cost of the Government’s absurdly lengthy and intrusive investigation.

Jan Crawford reports for CBS News on the arguments underpinning a potential Edwards defense:

Edwards’ legal team argues that the prosecution’s theory is unprecedented and wrong. They say there is only one case involving gifts to federal candidates that’s even remotely comparable — and it not only is distinguishable, but also was merely an advisory opinion by the FEC that never has been cited as authority for a criminal prosecution.

In that case, the FEC said a proposed gift to a federal candidate was illegal because the donor wouldn’t have made it if the candidate weren’t running for office. Edwards, on the other hand, had long-standing personal relationships with donors Fred Baron and Bunny Mellon that continued after he withdrew from the race. In fact, Edwards had lunch with Mellon on Thursday.

Elizabeth Edwards has died of breast cancer at the age of 61. Her cancer was diagnosed in the fall of 2004, and recurrence was found in March 2007. Click here for the New York Times obituary.

Many Iowans got to know Elizabeth well during John Edwards' two presidential campaigns. I saw her speak many times but met her only once, at a crowded fundraiser in a private home during the summer of 2007. My kids were with me in a stuffy, overcrowded basement, and Elizabeth spent a surprisingly long time entertaining my bored four-year-old. I remember thinking it was above and beyond whatever time she needed to spend to acknowledge everyone while "working the room." She was good with kids. I feel sorry that the last few years of her life were so difficult for her and her family, as if fighting cancer weren’t stressful enough.

My thoughts tonight are mostly with her surviving children, especially Emma Claire and Jack. When I was about their age, I lost my mother to cancer. Elizabeth's death will always affect their lives, although other family members may ease the blow if they step up to the plate in the coming years. I feel for Cate, who as a teenager had to cope with her only sibling's death, and now will need to help her two younger siblings deal with a major bereavement.  

The Edwards family has asked that memorial contributions go to the Wade Edwards Learning Lab, a non-profit they set up in memory of their son Wade, who died in a 1996 car accident. I never knew before tonight that a few weeks before Wade died, he received an award at the White House for writing this essay.

Elizabeth Edwards posted a "farewell" message on Facebook this week, and I've reproduced it after the jump, along with reaction from various Iowa political figures.

P.S.– Elizabeth reportedly advised her husband to vote against the resolution authorizing the use of military force in Iraq in October 2002. If he’d had the guts to listen to her advice, he may have become the Democratic nominee in 2004, as a more electable alternative to the main anti-war candidate in the field, Howard Dean. Elizabeth also said in the summer of 2007 that she thought same-sex marriage should be legal, although her husband disagreed.

UPDATE: The Edwards family created a new website where people can share memories of Elizabeth, whether they knew her well or only met her once.  

John Deeth’s latest blog post for the Des Moines Register reviews the ten worst campaigns waged in Iowa during the past 20 years. I didn’t observe all of those campaigns first-hand, but he makes a convincing case for including most of the candidates on his list.

Two campaigns don’t belong on Deeth’s list, in my opinion. He ranked Congressman Neal Smith’s 1994 effort as number seven. Maybe Smith was slow to realize that Greg Ganske was a threat, but one thing destroyed Smith in that race, and it wasn’t incompetence. Redistricting after the 1990 census took Story County and Jasper County out of Smith’s district, replacing them with a bunch of rural counties in southwest Iowa he had never represented. Smith brought incalculable millions to Iowa State University over the years, and union membership in the Newton area was very strong. If Story and Jasper had still been in IA-04, Smith would have easily survived even the Republican wave of 1994.

Number two on Deeth’s list is Hillary Clinton’s 2008 Iowa caucus campaign. As I discussed at length here, I feel that Barack Obama won the caucuses more than Clinton or John Edwards lost them. Remember, Clinton started out way behind in Iowa. Whatever mistakes her campaign made, and they made plenty, you have to give them credit for getting more than 70,000 Iowans to stand in her corner on a cold night in January. That included many thousands of people who had never attended a caucus before. In the summer of 2007, almost anyone would have agreed that 70,000 supporters would be enough to win here. The turnout for Clinton is even more impressive when you consider that she did worse on second choices than Obama or Edwards. She didn’t win Iowa, but this wasn’t one of the ten worst Iowa campaigns by a longshot.

I want to share one anecdote about Jim Ross Lightfoot’s gubernatorial campaign in 1998, which rightfully claimed the top spot on Deeth’s list. Lightfoot blew a huge lead over little-known Tom Vilsack in September and October. Here’s how stupid this guy was. According to several people who witnessed the event, Lightfoot advocated for school prayer at a candidate forum organized by Temple B’Nai Jeshurun in Des Moines. Not only that, Lightfoot told that room full of Jews that majority rule should determine the prayer. For instance, in a town that’s 90 percent Danish, why not let them say Lutheran prayers in school?

Terry Branstad showed horrible judgment by endorsing Lightfoot in the 1998 primary, when he could have supported his own highly capable Lieutenant Governor Joy Corning.

Go read Deeth’s post, then share your own thoughts about the worst Iowa campaigns in this thread.

Also, check Deeth’s own blog regularly this month for updates on Iowa candidate filings. March 19 is the deadline for state legislative and statewide candidates to submit nomination papers.

I expected 2009 to be a relatively quiet year in Iowa politics, but was I ever wrong.

The governor’s race heated up, state revenues melted down, key bills lived and died during the legislative session, and the Iowa Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling in Varnum v Brien became one of this state’s major events of the decade.

After the jump I’ve posted links to Bleeding Heartland’s coverage of Iowa politics from January through June 2009. Any comments about the year that passed are welcome in this thread.

Although I wrote a lot of posts last year, there were many important stories I didn’t manage to cover. I recommend reading Iowa Independent’s compilation of “Iowa’s most overlooked and under reported stories of 2009,” as well as that blog’s review of “stories that will continue to impact Iowa in 2010.”

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.

Such as the revolving door between Congress and corporate lobbyists:

The nation’s largest insurers, hospitals and medical groups have hired more than 350 former government staff members and retired members of Congress in hopes of influencing their old bosses and colleagues, according to an analysis of lobbying disclosures and other records. […]

Nearly half of the insiders previously worked for the key committees and lawmakers, including  Sens. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and  Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), debating whether to adopt a public insurance option opposed by major industry groups. At least 10 others have been members of Congress, such as former House majority leaders Richard K. Armey (R-Tex.) and Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.), both of whom represent a New Jersey pharmaceutical firm.

The hirings are part of a record-breaking influence campaign by the health-care industry, which is spending more than $1.4 million a day on lobbying in the current fight, according to disclosure records. And even in a city where lobbying is a part of life, the scale of the effort has drawn attention. For example, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) doubled its spending to nearly $7 million in the first quarter of 2009, followed by Pfizer, with more than $6 million.

So corporate groups are spending $1.4 million a day on lobbying to block a real public health insurance option, which most Americans want.

That’s on top of the millions of dollars the same corporate groups have donated directly to Congressional campaigns. Iowa’s Senator Chuck Grassley has taken hundreds of thousands of dollars from the industries with the most at stake in health care reform.

Members of Congress claim lobbyists and campaign money don’t shape their opinions, but Grassley should know better. He understands that big money from pharmaceutical companies can influence the conclusions of medical researchers–why not elected officials?

Nate Silver has found strong evidence that special-interest money affects Democratic senators’ support for the public option in health care reform.

By the way, I wasn’t too cheered by Senator Chuck Schumer’s promise over the weekend that the health care bill will contain a public option. The current draft in the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions excludes lots of people from choosing the public option over their current health insurance. That will limit competition for the private insurers that have near-monopolies in many markets.

Back in 2003 all the Democratic presidential candidates talked a good game on health care. Now Dick “this is a moral issue” Gephardt is lobbying for a pharmaceutical company. I’ll stand with Howard Dean and hope that John Edwards was wrong about the system being rigged because corporations have too much power in Washington.

Final note: Moveon.org is organizing health care rallies this Thursday, July 9, at senators’ offices in their home states. Sign up here to attend a rally near you.

I saw at Iowa Independent that Hillary Clinton’s former pollster and adviser, Mark Penn, is claiming there could have been a “different outcome” in Iowa if John Edwards had been out of the race.

My conversations with hundreds of Edwards supporters suggested that many preferred Barack Obama or one of the longshot Democratic contenders to Clinton. David Redlawsk has data to back up my anecdotes:

University of Iowa political science professor David Redlawsk conducted a caucus night survey on second choices. “We asked people ‘If your candidate is not viable, what will you do?’ 82 percent of Edwards supporters said they would support another candidate and 18 percent would not,” said Redlawsk. “When we asked which candidate they would then support, 32 percent said Clinton and 51 percent said Obama. Had this actually happened statewide, Obama would have been even further ahead of Clinton.”

“As the campaign progressed few Edwards people gave any indication that Clinton was their second choice,” said Redlawsk […].

I stand by my contention that given the Obama campaign’s almost unlimited resources and well-executed strategy, there is little Clinton or Edwards could have done differently to win the Iowa caucuses.

Incidentally, Clinton still has debt from her presidential campaign, including unpaid bills to Penn. I don’t think he deserves to collect, given the bad advice he gave his client, like pivoting to a “general election strategy” in October 2007 and having no “plan B” in case the campaign went beyond Super Tuesday.

UPDATE: Please take the poll after the jump on the Clinton campaign’s biggest strategic error.

On January 3, 2008, roughly 240,000 Iowans attended Democratic precinct caucuses, and at least 90,000 of them ended up in Barack Obama’s corner.

However we felt about Obama during the primaries or the general election campaign, whatever we think about his substantive and symbolic actions since the election, we can all agree that he would not be taking the oath of office tomorrow if Iowa caucus-goers had put him in third place, or even a distant second.

I started writing this diary several times last year. I kept abandoning it because emotions were so raw on Democratic blogs that I felt the piece would only ignite a flamewar. Since more than a year has passed, I decided to try one more time.

I do not mean to start an argument or pretend that I have all the answers. I just enjoy thinking about counterfactual history (such as this or this).

After the jump I will try to figure out whether Hillary Clinton or John Edwards could have beaten Obama in Iowa.

Congratulations to Jennifer O’Malley Dillon, who according to the Washington Post is President-elect Barack Obama’s choice to be the new executive director of the Democratic National Committee. She will be “running the party’s day-to-day operations, including fundraising.”

The job is particularly important because Obama’s pick for DNC chairman, Tim Kaine, still has a year to serve as governor of Virginia and presumably won’t be a hands-on manager at the DNC.

Many Iowans know O’Malley Dillon from her work on John Edwards’ presidential campaigns. She worked in field before the 2004 caucuses and was Edwards’ Iowa campaign director before the 2008 caucuses. After Edwards left the presidential race, she became the director of battleground states strategy for Obama’s campaign.

O’Malley Dillon is married to Patrick Dillon, whom she met while both worked on Edwards’ first presidential campaign here. Patrick Dillon later managed Chet Culver’s gubernatorial campaign and became the governor’s chief of staff.

Anyone have any idea who’s likely to replace Dillon at Terrace Hill?

Here’s O’Malley Dillon’s Facebook page, for those who are into that kind of thing.

Regarding the news that Obama wants Kaine as DNC chairman, Bob Brigham made some persuasive arguments against the choice, while Jonathan Singer was “more than content with the pick.” Singer noted,

in recent years the DNC Chairmanship has been split into two posts while the Democrats have controlled the White House, with a dignitary serving as General Chairman and a strategist running the day-to-day operations of the committee. Under Bill Clinton, this strategy predominated, with Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd, Colorado Governor Roy Romer and then-former Philadelphia Mayor Ed Rendell serving as General Chairmen — the spokesmen of the party — while others were left to handle the details. Indeed, this appears to be the thinking of Obama in tapping Kaine, also choosing the director of his battleground state strategy, Jennifer O’Malley Dillon, to run the committee’s operations.

Kaine wouldn’t be my first, second or third choice to run the DNC, but if Obama wants him there no one is going to stop him. The Virginia Democratic bloggers who know his record are not fans (a few links are in this post). I’d much rather have Kaine at the DNC than as vice president, though. I’m relieved Obama passed him over for that job.

O’Malley Dillon is highly capable and makes me feel better about the future management of the DNC.

My main concern is that the committee not abandon the 50-state strategy after Howard Dean leaves. Washington insiders attacked Dean for sending organizers to red states in 2005, but that strategy contributed significantly to Democratic gains in Congress in 2006 and 2008.

UPDATE: At Century of the Common Iowan, noneed4thneed observes that O’Malley Dillon’s appointment “probably solidifies the Iowa Cacuses’s first in the nation status.”

SECOND UPDATE: Marc Ambinder’s take on what this means:

O’Malley-Dillon is seen by the team as a manager with an organizational background that appeals to Obama.  She is large measure responsible for Sen. John Edwards’s solid caucus performances in 2004 and 2008.  She was recruited by Steve Hilderband to join Obama’s campaign as battleground states director and spent the general election overseeing state field budgets and figuring out where to send the principals.

The DNC will retain traditional responsibilities, like planning the convention and political research. But it will significantly expand its campaign organizing capacity and probably its staff; think of it as current DNC chairman Howard Dean’s 50 state strategy on steroids.

A year ago tonight, nearly 240,000 Iowans spent a couple of hours in overcrowded rooms during the Democratic precinct caucuses.

Thousands of others came to freezing cold Iowa to knock on doors or make phone calls for their presidential candidate in late December and early January.

Share any memories you have about caucusing or volunteering in this thread.

After the jump I re-posted my account of what happened at my own caucus. I was a precinct captain for Edwards.

Last year at this time I was scrambling to make as many phone calls and knock on as many doors as I could before the Iowa caucuses on January 3.

This week I had a little more time to reflect on the year that just ended.

After the jump I’ve linked to Bleeding Heartland highlights in 2008. Most of the links relate to Iowa politics, but some also covered issues or strategy of national importance.

I only linked to a few posts about the presidential race. I’ll do a review of Bleeding Heartland’s 2008 presidential election coverage later this month.

You can use the search engine on the left side of the screen to look for past Bleeding Heartland diaries about any person or issue.

We’ve had ten days to decompress from the election. It’s time for a little self-promotion and self-criticism.

What did you predict accurately during the past presidential campaign, and what did you get completely wrong?

The ground rules for this thread are as follows:

1. This is about your own forecasting skills. Do not post a comment solely to mock someone else’s idiocy.

2. You are not allowed to boast about something you got right without owning up to at least one thing you got wrong.

3. For maximum bragging rights, include a link to a comment or diary containing your accurate prediction. Links are not required, though.

I’ll get the ball rolling. Here are some of the more significant things I got wrong during the presidential campaign that just ended.

I thought that since John Edwards had been in the spotlight for years, the Republicans would probably not be able to spring an “October surprise” on us if he were the Democratic nominee. Oops.

In 2006 I thought Hillary’s strong poll numbers among Democrats were

inflated by the fact that she has a lot of name recognition. I think once the campaign begins, her numbers will sink like Lieberman’s did in 2003.

Then when her poll numbers held up in most states throughout 2007, I thought Hillary’s coalition would collapse if she lost a few early primaries. Um, not quite.

I thought Barack Obama would fail to be viable in a lot of Iowa precincts dominated by voters over age 50.

I thought Obama had zero chance of beating John McCain in Florida.

Here are a few things I got right:

I consistently predicted that Hillary would finish no better than third in the Iowa caucuses. For that I was sometimes ridiculed in MyDD comment threads during the summer and fall of 2007.

I knew right away that choosing Sarah Palin was McCain’s gift to Democrats on his own birthday, because it undercut his best argument against Obama: lack of experience.

I immediately sensed that letting the Obama campaign take over the GOTV effort in Iowa might lead to a convincing victory for Obama here without maximizing the gains for our down-ticket candidates. In fact, Iowa Democrats did lose a number of statehouse races we should have won last week.

By the way, please consider helping Bleeding Heartland analyze what went wrong and what went right for Democrats in some of the state House and Senate races.

I’ve been consistently worried that Barack Obama would not set an ambitious domestic policy agenda if elected president. His post-partisan rhetoric has given me the impression that he would move toward compromising with the Republican position on various issues before negotiations with Congress have begun. Specifically on health care, I agreed with Paul Krugman of the New York Times that Obama’s proposal was not as good as the plans John Edwards and Hillary Clinton advocated during the primaries.

Obama hasn’t been sworn in yet, and the new Congress won’t meet for more than a month, but already there are signs of growing momentum for truly universal health care reform (and not just incremental progress toward that goal).

On Wednesday Senator Max Baucus of Montana, who chairs the Finance Committee, released a “white paper” on health reform. You can get the gist by reading this diary by TomP or this one by DemFromCT. Ezra “Momma said wonk you out” Klein dived into the details in a series of posts this week.

The key point is that Baucus embraced the concept of mandatory health insurance, but with a public plan any American could choose to join. So, if private insurers kept jacking up premiums while covering less and less medical care, people could “vote with their feet” by paying into a public plan that would work like Medicare (the patient chooses the doctor).

This story explains Baucus’ line of thinking:

Baucus, of Montana, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, said in a health-care blueprint released today that only a mandate could ensure people didn’t wait until they were ill to buy health insurance, forcing up the price for everyone.

The 89-page proposal revives a debate from the Democratic presidential primaries about how to overhaul the U.S. health- care system. Obama supported requiring coverage only for children, saying adults would buy coverage voluntarily if it were affordable. Senator Hillary Clinton of New York said insurance must be mandated for everyone.

“Requiring all Americans to have health coverage will help end the shifting of costs of the uninsured to the insured,” Baucus said today in his plan. The requirement “would be enforced possibly through the U.S. tax system or some other point of contact between individuals and the government,” he said, without spelling out possible penalties. […]

Because of the urgency of health-care reform, Congress should move on legislation in the first half of next year, Baucus said at a press conference today in Washington.

“There is no way to solve America’s economic problems without solving health care,” he said. The $2.2 trillion health-care system “sucks up 16 percent of our economy and is still growing,” Baucus said.

It’s hard to exaggerate the significance of this development. First, as many others have noted, if Baucus runs health care reform through the Finance Committee there is a good chance it will be the kind of bill not subject to a filibuster. That means the Democrats would need only 50 votes (not 60) to pass it in the Senate.

Second, Baucus is among the more conservative members of the Senate Democratic caucus (check out his Progressive Punch ratings here). If he is ready for big, bold health care reform, the ground has shifted.

Third, this development could be very discouraging for Iowa’s own Senator Chuck Grassley, the ranking Republican on the Finance Committee. Traditionally, Grassley and Baucus have had a close working relationship. But this past summer Grassley was annoyed when Democrats rejected a deal he thought he had cut with Baucus on a Medicare bill, and Baucus denied having reached any prior agreement with Grassley.

This report from Wednesday quotes Grassley expressing skepticism about finding the money to pay for a big health care initiative.

If Baucus moves away from the habit of compromising with Grassley now that the Democrats will have a solid Senate majority, could Iowa’s senior senator decide to step down in 2010? We all know that Grassley’s seat is safe for Republicans unless he retires. He seems to like his job, but perhaps facing defeat after defeat in a Democratic-controlled Congress would diminish his desire to hang around for another six years.  

I stand by my contention that Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson’s bailout scheme is among the worst proposals to come out of George Bush’s very bad presidency.

So I am glad to learn that Iowa Treasurer Mike Fitzgerald wants some questions answered before urging Congress to pass the bailout. Click the link to read Marc Hansen’s column about a conference call Fitzgerald and other state treasurers had on Thursday with acting U.S. treasury undersecretary for domestic finance.

I am no economics whiz, but I can help answer Fitzgerald’s first question:

Why $700 billion?

From his office at the Capitol, Fitzgerald listened intently, waiting for the answer that never came. And what did he get instead?

“Nothing,” he says, “other than a lot of babble.”

What’s so magical about $700 billion? Fitzgerald still doesn’t know. It’s about 5 percent of the gross domestic product, if that means anything.

“Magical” is a good word for the number, because as it turns out, they just made it up.

I know this because a few days ago, Open Left diarist fladem posted this link from Forbes magazine:

In fact, some of the most basic details, including the $700 billion figure Treasury would use to buy up bad debt, are fuzzy.

“It’s not based on any particular data point,” a Treasury spokeswoman told Forbes.com Tuesday. “We just wanted to choose a really large number.”

David Sirota has written two good pieces quoting Nobel prize-winning economists and others on why there is no crisis requiring a bailout package. Here is part 1, and here is part 2.

In an alternate universe where John Edwards hadn’t disgraced himself, he could have been an effective voice against the rush to shovel taxpayer dollars to Wall Street.

Instead, we have Barack Obama’s campaign letting Roger Altman speak for them in favor of Paulson’s scheme. That’s

the same Roger Altman who was a Clinton Treasury official when the Clinton-backed deregulatory orgy was taking place, the same Roger Altman who is now an investment banker who stands to make bank if this bailout passes, the same Roger Altman who Bloomberg notes “is advising a group of investors who are trying to prevent their shares from being diluted in the U.S. takeover of American International Group Inc.” – that is, who have a direct financial interest in Paulson’s bailout package.

Watching this train barrel down the track is quite discouraging.

Six months ago, a group of bloggers who had been producing the “Edwards Evening News Roundup” at Daily Kos created a new community forum to focus on issues and strategies for building the progressive movement. They called it the EENR blog because the EENR “brand” name was already well-known to hundreds of bloggers who considered themselves “Edwards Democrats.”

Since its creation, the EENRblog has become a great source for substantive diaries about issues you may not read much about elsewhere. It’s not a place where people obsess over tracking polls or Barack Obama’s campaign strategy. Diaries about campaigns are more likely to be about electing some of the “more and better Democrats” running for federal or state office.

This past weekend, the editorial team announced that the blog’s name had been changed to the Progressive Blue blog (www.progressiveblue.com):

Hello fellow EENR members –

We wanted you to be the first to know that EENRblog will be undergoing some changes beginning this weekend.

First, we want you to know that in its essence, the blog will remain the same. The reasons we are all here, the agenda that we all support, the need to promote it as well as push to elect More and Better Democrats who will further that agenda in Congress, the community we’ve all built here – these things will remain the same.

However, we will be making a few changes – most of them fairly subtle, and we want to share with you why we decided to make these. You are the community, and we don’t exist without you.

EENRblog originated out of the desire to advance the agenda John Edwards promoted during his campaign.  And just as we all had to deal with disappointment and even some anger at the end of his campaign, we’ve gone through an emotional roller coaster again with John Edwards’ revelation in early August. We decided to let things settle down so we wouldn’t make any rash decisions regarding the blog.

John Edwards gave us the most progressive agenda in years and he was the reason we had all come to know each other. He was the reason things like Universal Health Care and Poverty were even being talked about during this campaign season. We are proud to have been able to work with him to further those issues.  However, we chose to look at the bigger picture:

• Most of us had gotten on board with the Edwards  campaign not because of the man, but because of the issues – the Two America’s speech, etc… We wanted to elect John president because he was  an outspoken champion for those issues. In the bigger picture, the point  of this blog has never been to promote Edwards, but to promote and further  the progressive and populist agenda he had put forth. It’s not about him;  it’s about advocating for the agenda.

• Another part  of the discussion was about political perception and Edwards. Many of us  agree that he is down but not necessarily out; it will take a long time  for him to recover and be politically viable again. If the political  perception of Edwards in general is not good, then it hurts our ability to  promote the agenda for which we fought so hard.

This perception may also hurt us with guest bloggers and prospective candidates – politics is largely based on perception and whether we like or not or agree with it or not – Edwards tainted his brand – and candidates and guest bloggers may not want to risk being associated with him right now.

• Finally, if there are any other shoes left to  drop, it could taint him even further. That could really hurt our ability  to be effective advocates for the agenda. JRE always talked about how it  wasn’t about him, it was about us, the people… It was about the issues… We’re taking him up on that. We’re just taking the Edwards  Agenda and making it the People’s Agenda.

And so, we have decided to make some changes that you will notice over the next couple of days. The blog will retain most of its current layout, but will have a different name and logo with perhaps slightly different coloring and perhaps a new banner along the top. We will be adding a variety of progressive events to the event calendar, and the link colors will change as will the quote in the quote tile.

With this new name and logo, we will also be instituting a new web address, www.progressiveblue.com. We will keep the EENRblog.com address active for a while longer so everyone can still get to the blog if they forget the new name in the beginning.

We wanted to let our most active EENR members know first – give you a heads up on what is coming up and why. The changes are mostly cosmetic in nature; we are the same blog, with the same emphases and the same goals, all the regular columns (and maybe a few new ones), the same wonky nature, and the same love of snark, and we hope you all will still feel right at home, here at Progressive Blue.  

Respectfully,  

The EENR Editorial Board

     now The Progressive Blue Editorial Board

Whether or not you ever supported Edwards for president, I encourage you to bookmark the Progressive Blue blog and join the community there. I guarantee you will learn something every time you read the front page or the recent diary list.

Progressive Blue is also a good place to cross-post any diaries you have written about strong Democratic candidates or issues progressives should be concerned about. For instance, in the past month I have cross-posted diaries about reforming the caucus system, my son’s school encouraging parents to buy Tyson chicken products, and the Environmental Protection Commission’s decision to reject two CAFO applications in Dallas County.

Use this thread to tell us about the blogs you enjoy and find valuable.

John Edwards cancels all speaking engagements before the November election:

“Nothing is more important than electing Barack Obama and Joe Biden,” Edwards, the former Democratic senator from North Carolina, said in a statement released by the agency. “I don’t want my appearance at these events to be a distraction from the important issues of the election, or from the important purpose of these meetings.”

Last month he canceled plans to deliver the keynote at Iowa first lady Mari Culver’s Conference on Solutions to Poverty on September 16. That event was originally scheduled for June but had to be postponed because of floodwaters threatening downtown Des Moines.

Keeping a low profile is the right thing for Edwards to do now. The unfortunate side effect is that we don’t have any nationally-known Democrat talking about poverty or what to do about it.

In one of his last public appearances before admitting his extramarital affair, Edwards delivered the opening remarks at the AARP Foundation’s Poverty & Aging in America Symposium. Click the link to read edgery’s post about that speech and the policies that the “Half in Ten” poverty eradication program is advocating.

UPDATE: On the other hand, the Buffalo News says Edwards still plans to debate Karl Rove at the University of Buffalo on September 26. Perhaps Edwards’ representative has not yet informed the university about the change in plans, or perhaps he is making an exception for this event. I would think it prudent to cancel this appearance too, although when it was first announced I thought it would be fantastic to watch Edwards take on Rove.

SECOND UPDATE: Wesley Clark will debate Rove in place of Edwards. Should be worth watching, although it is scheduled for the same night as the first Obama-McCain debate.

AT&T threw an invitation-only party on Monday night for the “Blue Dogs” in the House of Representatives. Matt Stoller found a blurb in the newspaper about this party:

Just because the Blue Dogs are fiscally conservative doesn’t mean they can’t have a good time, especially when AT&T is picking up the bill.

Why would AT&T want to throw an expensive party for the Blue Dogs? Maybe it’s because most of those Blue Dogs (including my own Congressman Leonard Boswell) voted with the House Republicans to pass a version of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act containing retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies that spied on Americans.

A group of well-known bloggers showed up outside the exclusive Denver restaurant to see who turned up. Glenn Greenwald of Salon, who wrote a book’s worth of material this year on FISA, tried to interview the people going into this party. Jane Hamsher of Firedoglake was there:

It was remarkable. I’ve never seen anything like it, really.  Glenn would announce that he was from Salon.com, ask them if they would be interviewed about the party, and nobody wanted to say who they were or even acknowledge that they knew what the party was about.

Almost every single person we talked with had the good sense to be ashamed of being there, but that didn’t stop them from going in.

I haven’t been able to confirm whether Boswell attended this party. Think Progress quotes the San Francisco Examiner, which reported that House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer was there:

Hoyer spokeswoman Stacey Bernards said Hoyer was not aware of any connection between the party and his work on the legislation.

“I’m sure Mr. Hoyer didn’t even know who the sponsor was,” she said.

Right. He had no idea who sponsored the party, even though numerous reports named AT&T as the sponsor. I’m sure Hoyer goes to parties all the time without asking who invited him.

From the San Francisco Examiner report:

AT&T is just one example of how political conventions have become a virtual bazaar where corporations and other special interests can peddle their wares, showcase their products and make a case for their favorite (or least favorite) piece of pending legislation.

The Texas-based company has the most high-profile corporate presence in Denver. It is a major sponsor at the convention, it is holding daily lunches for state delegations at the Pinnacle Club, with its startling views of the Rocky Mountain range, and co-hosting hip parties for the likes of the Screen Actors’ Guild and the New Democratic Coalition.

I seem to remember someone talking about the system being rigged because corporations have too much power in Washington, and how it wouldn’t be enough to replace corporate Republicans with corporate Democrats.

Oh yeah, it was that guy whose personal screw-up cost him a speaking slot at the convention. With him out of the picture, AT&T and the Blue Dogs can rest easy, because no prime-time speaker is going to be spreading that message in Denver.

Nor, I fear, are we likely to hear it from Democratic leaders in 2009.

This yellow-dog Democrat is not looking forward to checking the box next to Blue Dog Boswell’s name in November.

My best advice to those who are still angry about the FISA capitulation is don’t buy an iPhone. Getting one locks you into AT&T phone service.  

Apparently the new and improved slogan for Barack Obama’s campaign is “The Change We Need.”

I like that a lot better than “Change We Can Believe In.” People believe in religion. I am not looking to “believe in” a candidate, I am looking for a candidate who can deliver what Americans need.

But I suppose I would say that, since John Edwards frequently used “the change we need” on the stump and in debates.

Admittedly, Edwards put a bit of a different spin on the slogan:

As President, I will make sure the voices of all Americans are heard in Washington. If we fight together, we can get the change we need and America will rise.

Similarly,

Where some of the other Democratic candidates use the language of compromise or are in fact taking money from and in support of the corporate interests who are blocking real change, I think the policies I’ve released and the way I’ve spoken out show that I’m more willing to fight to achieve the change we need.

Obama doesn’t position himself as a fighter, which is probably just as well. It wouldn’t suit his temperament.

Another difference is that Edwards didn’t necessarily portray himself as the agent of “the change we need.” He often used the expression in reference to the forces preventing that change, as in this speech on restoring our democracy:

To actually create change, we should start by telling the truth.

Here’s the truth: the system in Washington is broken. Money is corrupting our democracy. Lobbyists and the special interests they represent are pouring millions of dollars into the system, and stopping the change we need dead in its tracks.

I’ll be the first to admit that “the system is broken” was not as appealing a message for many Americans as the more upbeat “we are the change we’ve been waiting for.” But despite my deep disappointment regarding the recent revelations about Edwards, I still feel that his campaign message was more honest and to the point.

That’s water under the bridge. I’ve got no problem with Obama using “The Change We Need.” Heck, I’m even considering sending in $15 to get an Obama-Biden magnet for my car.

Like many people who volunteered for John Edwards last year, I’ve been working through conflicting feelings this weekend.

Natasha Chart voiced some of my frustration in this piece about our ridiculous standards of public morality. Ethical lapses that affect the lives of thousands or millions of people are not career-enders for politicians, but marital infidelity is supposed to be–if you’re a Democrat. Once again, it’s ok if you’re a Republican.

Many Edwards supporters are angry about the publicity surrounding this story. It’s infuriating to see journalists more interested in Edwards now that he has admitted to an affair than they were when he was a presidential candidate talking about substantive issues.

David Mizner loathes the “American sickness” of needing to know about the sex lives of politicians, adding:

I supported Edwards not because I loved him and not because I thought he had sex with only his wife. I supported him because I believe in progressive populism.

Many bloggers I respect, from TomP to MontanaMaven and RDemocrat made similar comments on Friday. After all, we were backing Edwards for president, not husband of the year.

Ellinorianne put it well:

What John did in 2006 has no bearing on Universal Health Care.  What happened in 2006 does not make poverty in this County any less of an urgent issue.  The corporate media would love to believe that what John did in 2006 would mean one less powerful voice talking about the strangle hold that corporations have on every facet of our lives in this Country.

Nothing can take away from these issues unless we let it happen.

On one level, I relate to what Ellinorianne wrote, because Edwards undoubtedly put topics on the agenda that would barely have been discussed had he not run for president. While he was in the race, at least one candidate was talking about the excesses of corporate power. After he dropped out, that issue disappeared from political discourse.

For that reason, I never regretted the time I spent volunteering for Edwards. Of course, I was sorry that Iowans did not give him the boost he needed in the caucuses. I was disappointed that I failed to deliver a third delegate for him from my own precinct. But watching the campaign devolve into identity politics in February and March, I was more convinced than ever that helping this longshot candidate was worth the effort.

These past few weeks have caused me to question for the first time whether I would back Edwards if I had it to do over again. Edwards’ policies and rhetoric were a necessary condition for my support, but they would not have been sufficient had I not also believed that he was the strongest general election candidate. Otherwise I could have backed Dennis Kucinich, who was even closer to me ideologically than Edwards.

Here and at other blogs, I advocated for Edwards as the most electable candidate because of his communication skills, his appeal to small-town and rural voters, his way of evoking broad themes in his answers to specific questions, and so on.

Speaking to potential caucus-goers, I often noted that Edwards had faced intense national scrutiny for years, making it unlikely that the Republicans could spring any “October surprise” on us.

Now I realize that the whole time, Edwards was hiding a story that would have reinforced the most devastating narrative about him: he’s a phony who talks about one set of values but lives a different set of values.

How damaging was this narrative? Last year I used to joke that if I ever came into possession of a time machine, I would go back and persuade John Edwards to hire Sarah Susanka (the Not So Big House woman) to design his Chapel Hill home.

It appears that Edwards had no game plan other than to hope that Rielle Hunter wouldn’t tell anyone and/or that journalists wouldn’t pick up on the rumors as long as he lied.

I empathize with Elizabeth Edwards, who wrote on Friday:

This was our private matter, and I frankly wanted it to be private because as painful as it was I did not want to have to play it out on a public stage as well.

I agree with BruceMcF, who observed that our country would have lost a great leader if sexual immorality had ended Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s career.

But presidential candidates have to run in the world that is, not the world that used to be or the world that should be. I simply can’t imagine how this affair could have remained under wraps throughout a long campaign.

To my mind, Edwards owed it to all Democrats to either step aside or find some way to make this story old news. I understand the desire to avoid a media circus, but it wasn’t realistic to hope that journalists would cover for him or that Hunter would keep a secret.

Responding to a commenter at Daily Kos, Elizabeth Edwards wrote on Friday:

Each of us has a day we wish we could take back. We are all imperfect beings, Denny. Here’s what I know, looking back: poverty, a truly aggressive and progressive environmental platform, universal health care would not have been part of the discussion if someone of force and vision had not been there to make them part of the conversation.

An imperfect man with a truly progressive vision who spoke to and for those whom others ignored? Yes, that is who I supported.

An imperfect man who had come to face his own imperfections and was seeking to redeem himself to those closest to him? Yes, that is who I supported.

With the Supreme Court and so much more riding on the outcome of this election, helping someone redeem himself to his family is not high on my priority list. Ultimately, I have to agree with Ezra Klein:

No one forces you to devote your life to national advocacy of important issues. But if you decide to do follow that path, with all the plaudits and moments of roaring applause it entails, you have to make certain sacrifices, and shoulder certain realities. Among them is that if you falter, you can harm all that you’re advocating and deny help to all whom you claim to represent.

If Edwards wanted to face his imperfections, he should have found some vague way to disclose marital problems that he and Elizabeth had worked through. Let voters decide whether that should be a deal-breaker or whether his potential contribution to American life outweighs the mistake.

If he could not bear to get ahead of the story, the least he could have done was to tell the truth when first asked about rumors of his affair. DrFrankLives (who has devoted far more volunteer hours to Edwards than I have) hit the nail on the head in this diary:

I want to know two things.  How the hell could you, a man who ran everything through a careful filter, allow that to happen during a political campaign in which so many people had so much riding on you?  And what the hell were you thinking when you denied it when asked about it?  You’re a lawyer.  You know that questions keep coming.  And nothing delights a cross-examiner like a false answer.

Which candidate would I have supported knowing what I know now? Probably I would have held out for Al Gore for a few more months. Maybe I would have settled on Chris Dodd or Joe Biden. Neither of them were as strong on my key issues as Edwards, though. I suspect that I would have come around to Edwards eventually if the affair had been revealed early in the campaign. It wouldn’t be the first time I voted for someone who was unfaithful to his wife.

Had I known that Edwards was recklessly hiding a story with the potential to destroy his campaign, I would have found a different candidate for sure.

What makes me more angry than anything else is that this scandal appears to have derailed Elizabeth Edwards’ plans to speak at the Democratic National Convention in Denver. We need her voice on health care reform.

Feel free to share your own reflections in the comments.

I am glad John Edwards is not the Democratic nominee.

I will have more to say on this story in the next day or two. Meanwhile, here are some links for you.

Edwards talks to ABC News about the affair and denies he is the father of Rielle Hunter’s child:

Edwards blamed the affair on the adulation surrounding his remarkable rise into presidential politics.

“I went from being a senator, a young senator to being considered for vice president, running for president, being a vice presidential candidate and becoming a national public figure. All of which fed a self-focus, an egotism, a narcissism that leads you to believe that you can do whatever you want. You’re invincible. And there will be no consequences.”

Elizabeth Edwards says she and her husband began “a long and painful process” after he told her about the affair in 2006. She adds:

John has spoken in a long on-camera interview I hope you watch. Admitting one’s mistakes is a hard thing for anyone to do, and I am proud of the courage John showed by his honesty in the face of shame.  

David Mizner says, “Stop Moralizing, You Sickening Scolds:

So another human showed himself to be human, and nominal progressives hop on their high horses and moralize and judge and get all dewey-eyed in support of Elizabeth, as if you have any idea what went on in their marriage, and in their bed. As if you have any right to know.

This is none of our business.

This is an American sickness, this need to know–the belief that we’re entitled to know–about the sexual lives of politicians.

But but but, you don’t have a problem with the sex, you say, you have a problem with his lying about it. Yeah, that’s what Ken Starr said too.

Meteor Blades speaks for many in this angry response to Mizner’s diary:

One can argue persuasively that it shouldn’t matter.  But should isn’t the real world, and it’s delusional to operate these days as a politican with the idea that what you have done doesn’t affect how some people might vote.

You knew when you declared for the presidency that this affair hung over you, that it might easily come to light. That it could, had you gained the nomination, have wrecked the party’s chances for winning the White House, tamped down support for Democrats running for seats in Congress, and set progressives back a decade. You knew that when you kept your name in the hopper for the vice presidency.

But you kept running anyway. You lied. And you got others to lie for you. You did this knowing full well the damage that could be done, not to your marriage, but to the party and the aspirations for better governance of those who looked to you as a leader who could help bring it about.

Ezra Klein uses less colorful language than Blades but makes a similar point:

No one forces you to devote your life to national advocacy of important issues. But if you decide to do follow that path, with all the plaudits and moments of roaring applause it entails, you have to make certain sacrifices, and shoulder certain realities. Among them is that if you falter, you can harm all that you’re advocating and deny help to all whom you claim to represent. I don’t know if it’s true that Edwards’ affair started and ended in 2006, but if so, that’s actually the most morally unforgivable of possible timelines.

Matt Stoller still believes Edwards is a phony but doesn’t get “the rush to vilify him as the worst person ever.”

Meanwhile, Cenk Uygur asks some important questions:

Does John Edwards care less about poor people today than he did yesterday? Would his affair lead him to change his position on NAFTA? How would it alter his policy on Iran?

Some will claim, as they did with Bill Clinton, that it’s not the affair but the lies that went along with it. Really? Did JFK come out and tell the American people – or his wife – “by the way, while my wife was in the hospital I was having an affair with not one, but several women at the same time”? No, of course, he lied too. Every man that has ever cheated on his wife has lied (and so has every woman who has ever cheated). It is part and parcel of the affair.

Now, we get to the most relevant question – if John Edwards’ political career is done, why isn’t John McCain’s? John McCain had a well-documented affair on his first wife, with his current wife. He has admitted in the books he has written about his life that he ran around with several different women while still married to his first wife. And don’t forget that he left her for a younger, richer woman – multi-millionaire Cindy Hensley who is now Cindy McCain – after she had been severely hurt in a car accident.

So, why are McCain’s actions any more excusable than Edwards’? Because it was thirty years ago? Does that wash it away? Will we be fine with Edwards running for office again in a couple of years because then it will all be in the past? What is the statute of limitations on an affair?

Digby wants to know why journalists haven’t followed up on the New York Times story about McCain’s alleged affair:

I personally don’t care who and of these people are sleeping with (especially McCain). Marriage is a very complicated institution and I don’t pass judgment on how others conduct theirs. I think this is all bullshit. But if the media has decided that even a failed politician who has no chance at the presidency can be subject to this kind of scrutiny, then they need to be a little bit more vigilant about pursuing someone who is the nominee of his party and has been very publicly linked to a specific woman by the paper of record, not the National Enquirer. If these are the rules, then this guy is a far more likely subject of scrutiny than Edwards.

In theory, I agree with Mizner that what goes on in a politician’s marriage is none of our business.

But in reality, I see no way that this affair could have been kept secret during a long campaign. If it was important to John and Elizabeth Edwards to prevent this media circus from happening, then he should have declined to run for president.

I also feel embarrassed to have inadvertently misled people in the course of advocating for Edwards.

I can’t count the number of times I said it would be less risky to nominate him, because he’s been under intense national scrutiny since 2004, so the Republicans would not be able to dig up new dirt on him.

Or in the words of another precinct captain I know, who used this line many times, “He’s been in the spotlight for years, and the worst they can say about him is he has a big house and paid too much for a haircut.”

Tonight I’m feeling more sorry than ever that Al Gore sat out this presidential campaign.

Virginia Senator Jim Webb withdrew his name from consideration as a vice-presidential candidate. That’s a relief from my perspective.

According to Marc Ambinder,

A Democrat close to Webb confirms that a request for documents preceded his declaration to the Obama campaign. The Democrat said that Webb did not want to relive the vigors of a campaign so soon after his election to the Senate.

Like I’ve been saying, Webb does not like campaigning enough to be a good running mate.

Meanwhile, John Edwards will debate “Bush’s brain” Karl Rove on September 26. Some people have interpreted the scheduling of that event as a sign Edwards knows he will not be Obama’s running mate.

I still think Wes Clark would be an excellent choice for Obama, despite the recent dustup over comments he made about John McCain.

Some smart people think he will pick Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius, but I still think that it would be a mistake for Obama to choose a woman other than Hillary Clinton.

VP search teams for Obama and McCain have both begun vetting candidates. McCain is said to be considering Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney.

I tend to agree with Douglas Burns, who wrote that Alaska Governor Sarah Palin would be a good running mate for McCain.

If McCain is feeling pressure in Florida (a state he must win in order to get 270 electoral votes), he might consider selecting Florida Governor Charlie Crist. Rumors that Crist is gay could be a problem with that scenario. Crist was married to a woman in his early 20s and just got engaged to his current girlfriend.

Put your predictions or opinions about either candidate’s VP choice in the comment section.

Paul Rosenberg still wants John Edwards on the ticket, citing new opinion polls that show he helps Barack Obama more than many other possible running-mates.

Virginia Senator Jim Webb seems to have taken himself out of the running by co-sponsoring a bill to allow offshore oil drilling in Virginia.

Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold seems to have taken himself out of the running by criticizing Obama for opting out of public financing for his general-election campaign.

General James Jones has to be off the list after he accompanied John McCain to a campaign event in Missouri.

As I’ve written before, Obama must above all do no harm with his VP choice. That means he can’t choose anyone who would alienate the Democratic constituencies that favored Hillary Clinton in the primaries. If I were in his position, I would probably choose someone close to the Clintons, like Wes Clark.

However, if Obama doesn’t want to tap someone from the Clinton circle, a number of other choices, including Joe Biden, Bill Richardson and John Edwards, would be ok by me.

If he wants an “old wise man,” I much prefer former Florida Senator Bob Graham to someone like former Georgia Senator Sam Nunn.

I am absolutely, implacably opposed to putting any Republican (such as Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel) on the Democratic ticket. The next president is going to appoint several Supreme Court judges, and I don’t want any conservative to have any chance of becoming president.

Make the case for the running mate of your choice in the comments.

UPDATE: Good discussion about the pros and cons of Biden on the ticket in the comment thread under this diary: Biden Drank Graham’s Milkshake: Veep Audition?

As always, please send me an e-mail or put up a comment if I have left out any significant event.

In many communities, this week will be dominated by flood clean-up activities. Stay safe if you are volunteering for any of those.

Note that First Lady Mari Culver’s Poverty Conference in Des Moines, which was originally scheduled for June 19, has been rescheduled for September 16. John Edwards was to be the keynote speaker for that event. It is not yet clear whether he will deliver the keynote in September.

If you already registered for this conference but won’t be able to attend in September, go here to update your registration:

http://www.iowaworkforce.org/p…

Tuesday, June 17:

Rob Hubler, Democratic candidate for Congress in Iowa’s fifth district, will be at a picnic with the Schaben family at Pleasant View Park in Dunlap 6:30pm. BBQ and an auction, including a signed copy of Obama’s book! Call (712) 352-2077 for details.

Congressman Bruce Braley will hold a first-ever telephone town hall meeting at 7 pm “to discuss gas prices and the need for a new direction in our energy policies.” Iowans who wish to call in to the town hall themselves should contact one of Rep. Braley’s district offices for a call-in number and passcode.

Thursday, June 19:

Johnston’s Green Days weekend begins on Thursday evening and runs through Sunday with a long list of events and activities:

http://johnstongreendays.org/s…

Planned Parenthood of Greater Iowa is holding its annual event from 5:30 to 9:00 pm at the Marriott Hotel in West Des Moines. The special guest will be the “Shoe Lady,” Miss Meghan Cleary. Miss Meghan, author of The Perfect Fit: What Your Shoes Say About You, can tell your personality just by looking at your shoes. How fun! Plan on kicking up your heels at Celebrate Shoes! Tickets cost $125/person or $75/person for 35 years old and under. To reserve your seat at the event, call 515-235-0406 or e-mail JGood AT ppgi.org.

Friday, June 20:

Ankeny Area Democrats annual Garage and Bake Sale will be held at the home of Arvid and Mary Oliver 1709 NE Lowell Court, on June 20 and 21. Start gathering the items you would like to donate to the sale. These items can be delivered the any time during the week of the sale. Your help is invaluable to a successful sale. We will be setting up and pricing on Thursday the 19h.  For further information either email Ankenyareadems@msn.com or, call Arvid or Mary at 964-1227.

Johnston Green Days events begin on Friday at 5 pm. More details are here:

http://johnstongreendays.org/s…

Saturday, June 21:

Planned Parenthood of Greater Iowa and the Healthy Families project will be at the Des Moines Farmer’s Market this Saturday, June 21st. Volunteers will represent the Planned Parenthood mission, and help educate people about the need to reduce unintended pregnancies in Iowa.  Of course we’ll be handing out lots of goodies as well! Past Farmer’s market volunteers have had a lot of fun, and say it’s one of the best volunteer opportunities available. Help educate the public and have fun too. Any time you can give is much appreciated: work for a couple of hours, or the whole time. Shifts are available from 8am – Noon. Click here to e-mail Chelsea Hammond to volunteer or call (515) 235-0415

Congressional candidate Rob Hubler, Council Bluffs Mayor Hanafan, Senator Gronstal, Representative Shomshor, Kurt Hubler (house district 99 challenger), other local candidates, and the Pottawattamie county democrats will be at the grand opening party of the county office at 722 Creek Top in Council Bluffs. Rob Hubler will be speaking and answering questions from 5-7pm. Details 712-352-1192.

As part of the Juneteenth celebration in Des Moines, Neighbors Day will run from noon to 7:00 pm on Saturday at Evelyn Davis Park, 14th and Forest Avenue in Des Moines. Come out, enjoy some tasty food and listen to some great performances from the Ambassadors of Praise Choir of Cornerstone Family Church(directed by Rev. Tina Williams), Big Bang!, Comfort Zone, Des Moines Boyz, Sumpin’ Doo and more.

Johnston Green Days event schedule:

http://johnstongreendays.org/s…

Sunday, June 22:

Last day for carnival at Johnston Green Days event from 1 pm to 5 pm at the Johnston Commons.

A John Edwards supporter who is a delegate to the Iowa Democratic Party’s state convention received this letter from Edwards and posted it on a bloggers’ e-mail loop. She said the letter arrived on Barack Obama letterhead:

June 10, 2008

Dear State Convention Delegates and Alternates:

I want to thank you for all that you have done to support Elizabeth and me over the years. It has been an honor to have your support.

We are now at a critical time in this nominating process. And I know that Barack Obama is a good man who will stand up for what matters for the future of this country. I know he carries the same hope in his heart that you and I do. The hope to make this country better, to end 8 long years of division, and to build one America instead of two.

I am asking you today to join with me in publicly supporting Barack Obama. We need you in this cause and in this movement. I always said that our campaign was not about me — it was about a vision for true change in American and the strength to fight for it.

In their search for a candidate to fulfill this vision, the Democratic voters in America have made their choice — and so have I. Barack Obama is the leader we need, and it’s up to each one of us to make sure we elect him President. I hope that I can count on you to join me in this cause.

Again, many thanks for all your past and continued support.

Sincerely,

John Edwards

The Iowa Democratic Party’s state convention was to have been held today, but it was postponed because of the catastrophic flooding in many parts of the state. Party leaders have rescheduled the event for June 28 in Des Moines.

Edwards delegates were able to form viable groups at four of the five district conventions held in Iowa two months ago, but that was before Edwards endorsed Obama.

David Redlawsk, an Edwards supporter from Iowa City who is also a delegate to the Democratic National Convention, had previously said he would encourage Edwards delegates to stay together at the state convention. Redlawsk explained that although he will vote for Obama at the DNC in Denver, he wants to help get more Edwards supporters chosen as Iowa delegates to the convention.

Though you wouldn’t know it from reading various blogs that support Barack Obama, the Democratic nominee was barely distinguishable from Hillary Clinton on most issues.

TomP reminded me of this in his diary yesterday about Obama choosing “centrist economist Jason Furman as the top economic advisor for the campaign.”

Click the link to learn why labor unions and many progressive organizations, such as Wake Up Wal-Mart and Public Citizen, are “seething” over Obama’s selection of Furman. Among other things, Furman has defended Wal-Mart’s business model and published a 2005 paper labeling Wal-Mart “A Progressive Success Story.”

The Steelworkers’ Union and AFL-CIO are not happy either about Furman’s support for global trade agreements and other writings as head of the Hamilton Project (a centrist economic group started by Bill Clinton’s Treasury Secretary, Robert Rubin).

Some Obama supporters say choosing Hillary Clinton as his running mate would undercut his whole message of getting beyond the 1990s.

Until Obama demonstrates that he is committed to getting beyond Clintonomics, that argument won’t be very convincing.

Obama talked a good game in his speech last week to the Service Employees International Union, but actions speak louder than words. Wall Street and other corporate interests have too much power in the Democratic Party already. Putting Furman in charge of Obama’s economic policy team is a very worrying sign.

By the way, Colin Kahl is still the chairman of Obama’s advisory task force on Iraq:

Kahl is one of the authors of [the Center for a New American Security’s] new report, “Shaping the Iraq Inheritance,” which proposes a policy called “conditional engagement” for Iraq that would leave a large contingent of American forces in Iraq for several years, and which would make America’s presence in Iraq contingent on political progress in Iraq toward reconciliation among the country’s ethnic and sectarian groups and parties.

It’s been two months since reports emerged about Kahl’s support for leaving 60,000 to 80,000 U.S. troops in Iraq at least through the end of 2010. Why won’t Obama fire this guy?

MoveOn.org is offering a free Obama ’08 bumper sticker to anyone who orders one here:

https://pol.moveon.org/obamast…

For now, I am keeping my Edwards bumper sticker on the car, along with my Buy Fresh, Local and Organic sticker. My husband’s car still has the Denise O’Brien for Secretary of Agriculture sticker!

A month or two ago I saw a pickup truck that had an Edwards sticker paired with one I’d never seen before: “Thou Shalt Not Scab.”

If Jerry Sullivan’s campaign produces bumper stickers, I’ll pick up one of those this year too.

What stickers do you have on your vehicle? Are you one of those people who keeps driving around promoting candidates long after they’ve lost an election, or do you get those stickers off your car ASAP?

What are the best and worst bumper stickers you’ve seen lately?

A few years ago I stopped at a light behind a car with a sticker that said something like, “Raised Republican–I can help myself, thank you!” The funny thing was, the same car had a handicapped emblem hanging from the rear-view mirror. I felt like stopping the driver to say he should thank Tom Harkin for the fact that he can find a convenient place to park.

Please go back and persuade John Edwards to hire Sarah Susanka (the Not So Big House woman) to design his Chapel Hill home.

Failing that, please go back and convince Barack Obama to resign from Trinity United Church of Christ before running for president, instead of right before the general election campaign.

Seriously, if Obama was going to leave his church to limit the potential damage to his political ambitions, he should have done it a long time ago. Doing it now, after everyone has seen Reverend Wright’s rants on television, just looks like pandering.

Desmoinesdem has been posting some links from the EENR Blog.

 A brief history: EENR initially stood for Edwards Evening News Roundup. Edwards supporters posted nightly diaries about John's campaign and what he stood for on the Daily Kos from April 4, 2007-Feb 1, 2008. When the campaign suspended and most of the other progressive blogs focused on the horse race, some JRE supporters decided to start our own blog to discuss issues facing all of us, and not just be a support group blog for disenfranchised JRE supporters.  The EENR editorial team believes that along with the issues, they (we) should advocate for more and better downticket candidates that support a more bold, progressive agenda on Capitol Hill and in some instances, state races.  That is why EENR endorsed Ed Fallon.

Tonight EENR proudly endorses Kevin Miskell, IA-04 who is a true John Edwards Democrat.  Here's why.

Miskell is a fifth generation Iowa farmer from Story County, Iowa.   See One Carolina Girl's video of Miskell from last year:

 EENR invited Miskell to come by last week and talk about the issues the community was interested in, which included international issues besides the war in Iraq that blogs and the M$M don't pay as much attention to; some would have been curve balls for many candidates.  EENR discovered Miskell has been following human rights and other international issues as its bloggers have.   That's rare.

  More below the fold….(text courtesy of Sarah Lane and also from Kevin Miskell's diary last week)  

Disclosure: I am on the EENR editorial team.

I don’t think Barack Obama will pick John Edwards as a running mate (the endorsement came too late for that), and I would probably rather see Edwards in a cabinet position with real authority than as a ribbon-cutter for Obama.

However, Open Left contributor Paul Rosenberg disagrees and has written three lengthy diaries making the case for Edwards as the best possible pick for Obama.

If you are interested, here are the links to the three diaries. Rosenberg explains his main thesis here:

This is not an “Edwards for VP” candidate diary series.  But it is a very candid look at why Edwards makes a strong choice, the better to discuss the underlying forces at play.  The foundations of my argument comes from two different diaries Chris wrote, years apart.  The first-discuissed in this diary-concerns the need for connecting Democratic Party liberalism with a more non-idelogical reform tradition.  The second-discussed in the next diary-concerns the logic a reinforcing VP pick.  After discussing those two diaries, I’ll review some recent polling data that shows Edwards as a very strong VP pick for Obama.

The Deep Logic of Edwards for VP–Part 1

Part 1 goes over “the need to supplement the Democratic base with an appeal to those who were non-ideological in the traditional liberal/conservative sense, but rather, were ideologically committed to reforming government to make it more responsive to the people.”

The Deep Logic of Edwards for VP–Part 2

The main argument of part 2 is that Edwards would be the best person to “reinforce” the ticket (as opposed to balancing the ticket).

The Deep Logic of Edwards for VP–Part 3

Part 3 has a lot of polling data to support Rosenberg’s argument.

Ben Smith put up a post about Barack Obama’s prominent early supporters, who came on board when he was seen as having little chance of beating Hillary Clinton. Here is his list:

Senator Richard Durbin

Former Majority Leader Tom Daschle

Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller

Oprah Winfrey

Iowa Treasurer Mike Fitzgerald

Former Iowa Democratic Party Chairman Gordon Fischer

Ted Sorensen

Virginia Governor Tim Kaine

Alabama Rep. Artur Davis

New Hampshire Rep. Paul Hodes

It’s easy to forget now that Gordon Fischer was on the fence between Clinton and Obama for some time last summer. He told the story of how Obama’s campaign hooked him in an interview with New Yorker journalist Ryan Lizza:

Obama, who had sometimes seemed to eschew the details of campaigning which Clinton appears to revel in, has become more enmeshed in the state’s idiosyncratic politics. Consider the conquest of Gordon Fischer, a former chairman of the Iowa Democratic Party. Every campaign wanted Fischer’s endorsement, but the Obama campaign pursued him relentlessly. At a recent lunch at the Des Moines Embassy Club, a restaurant on the forty-first floor of the tallest building in the state, Fischer explained how Obama’s Iowa operatives used his closest friends to persuade him to back Obama. One, Lola Velázquez-Aguilú, managed to decorate part of Fischer’s house with photographs of Obama that featured thought bubbles asking for Fischer’s endorsement. (“Has anyone told you how great you look today?” an image of Obama taped to a mirror said. “So, are you ready to sign a supporter card?”) When Obama staffers learned that the late Illinois senator Paul Simon was a hero of Fischer’s, they asked Simon’s son-in-law, Perry Knop, to call Fischer and make the case for Obama. At one point, Obama himself invited Fischer onto his campaign bus and told him that he had to stay aboard until he agreed to an endorsement. When Fischer insisted that he had to make the decision with his wife, Monica, Obama demanded Monica’s cell-phone number, and he called her at once. “Monica, this is Barack Obama,” he said when her voice mail came on. “I’m with your husband here, and I’m trying to go ahead and close the deal for him to support my candidacy. . . . Discuss it over with your man. Hopefully we can have you on board.” The Fischers were sufficiently impressed to endorse him, two weeks later. “I think the Iowa campaign has been run better than the national campaign,” Fischer said.

When I read Lizza’s article last November, I showed that passage to my husband, who remarked, “That’s actually a really good argument for scrapping the caucuses.” I’m sure that wasn’t Fischer’s intention, though!

But I digress.

Ben Smith’s post reminded me that I’ve been meaning to put up a poll about which candidate had the best celebrity supporters.

For the purposes of this diary, I am focusing on celebrities who publicly endorsed or campaigned for a candidate. Lists of famous donors can be deceiving, since many rich and famous people give large sums to multiple candidates:

Actor Michael Douglas, for example, has contributed to five current and former Democratic presidential candidates. As of Sept. 30, the latest reports available, he had donated the maximum $4,600 $2,300 for the primary campaign and $2,300 for the general election to Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama, Bill Richardson and Chris Dodd, and $1,500 to Dennis Kucinich.

[…]

Another serial donor in the current election is Paul Newman, who gave the maximum contribution to Obama, Clinton, and Dodd, and $2,300 to Richardson.

Some donors have spread the wealth around but have decided to back one candidate. Barbra Streisand gave $2,300 each to Clinton, Edwards and Obama, and $1,000 to Dodd, but recently endorsed Clinton for president.

[…]

Steven Spielberg and Rob Reiner are two other celebrities who donated to multiple presidential candidates four a piece before settling on Clinton. Reiner also shot a spoof video for Clinton’s Web site.

Actress Mary Steenburgen gave money to both Edwards and Clinton, but has backed Clinton, a friend for three decades, from the get-go. Steenburgen, a native of Newport, Ark., met the Clintons when Bill Clinton was in his first term as governor of Arkansas.

Last month the Huffington Post published this piece on the top ten celebrities for Clinton and Obama. Here is their list for Obama:

1. Oprah

2. will.i.am

3. the Kennedy women (Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg and Maria Shriver)

4. Ben Affleck

5. George Clooney

6. Scarlett Johansson

7. Samuel L. Jackson

8. Chris Rock

9. Robert De Niro

10. Jennifer Aniston

At least I have heard of these people. When I first saw will.i.am’s “Yes We Can” video, I swear that the only person I recognized was Kareem Abdul Jabbar.

HuffPo’s list of top ten Clinton supporters:

1. Ellen DeGeneres

2. Elton John

3. Ted Danson and Mary Steenburgen

4. Jack Nicholson

5. Natalie Portman

6. Mario Lavandeira (I never heard of him, but apparently he is the celebrity blogger Perez Hilton)

7. America Ferrera (star of “Ugly Betty”)

8. Magic Johnson

9. Barbra Streisand

10. Eva Longoria Parker (star of “Desperate Housewives”)

The list of other famous people who have donated to Obama or Clinton is of course very long. I know that Bruce Springsteen and Tom Hanks are also public Obama supporters. If I’ve left out celebrities who played an important public role in either candidate’s campaign, please let me know in the comments.

John Edwards: A bunch of big Hollywood names donated to his campaign, but most of them did not play any public role, and many also gave money to other Democratic candidates.

I was fortunate enough to see one of the mini-concerts Bonnie Raitt and Jackson Browne did for Edwards in Iowa last November. They also campaigned for him in New Hampshire. Tim Robbins came to early-voting states to stump for Edwards as well. I heard from a friend who saw Robbins in Des Moines that his first comment to the crowd was, “I’m not Oprah.” Ben “Cooter” Jones, former Congressman and star of the tv show “Dukes of Hazzard,” also campaigned for Edwards in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.

UPDATE: I can’t believe I forgot that Madeleine Stowe, Kevin Bacon, and James Denton (of “Desperate Housewives” fame) also came to Iowa to help out Edwards. In addition, Danny Glover and Harry Belafonte endorsed Edwards. Jon Mellencamp not only supported Edwards, he also invited him on stage during a concert in Des Moines.

Bill Richardson: Again, a lot of big Hollywood names maxed out to his campaign, but most of them didn’t endorse him. The exception was Martin Sheen, who came to Iowa in December to go out on the stump with Richardson. Sheen endorsed Obama after Richardson dropped out.

Joe Biden: The famous people listed here as his donors mostly contributed to other candidates as well. I cannot recall any celebrities coming to Iowa to campaign with Biden, but please correct me in the comments if I am wrong. He was often accompanied by family members, especially his sons Beau and Hunter. (UPDATE: I forgot that Richard Schiff, who played Toby the communications guy on “The West Wing,” came to Iowa to campaign with Biden.)

Chris Dodd: Many of the famous people who donated to his campaign also donated to other candidates. However, it is worth mentioning that singer-songwriter Paul Simon campaigned with Dodd in Iowa last July, and former Democratic Senatorial candidate Ned Lamont campaigned with Dodd in Iowa last November.

Dennis Kucinich: Viggo Mortensen came to New Hampshire to campaign with Kucinich after the candidate was left out of the last presidential debate before that state’s primary. Apparently Sean Penn gave Kucinich money during the 2004 campaign.

I am not aware of any celebrity supporters of Mike Gravel.

Click “there’s more” to take the poll after the jump.