The Des Moines Register announced yesterday that Kathie Obradovich will be the paper’s new political columnist. Her first column will run this Sunday.

Obradovich has covered Iowa politics for many years and been the Register’s political editor since 2003. She replaces David Yepsen, who earlier this year left to become director of the Paul Simon Public Policy Institute at Southern Illinois University at Carbondale.

Even though the Register’s statewide reach is not what it was a few decades ago, Yepsen still played an agenda-setting role for Iowa politicians and fellow journalists. Sometimes that was for the good, when he called attention to possible backroom deals at the statehouse. However, Yepsen sometimes forgot that his disapproval didn’t automatically make a political strategy illegitimate. I don’t think he ever apologized for wrongly giving his readers the impression that there was something unfair about encouraging college students to come back to Iowa for the 2008 caucuses, for instance. He was too quick to cite think tank reports as proof that Iowans are overtaxed, without considering the services Iowans get for our tax dollars compared to low-tax states like South Dakota. I also didn’t appreciate his suggestion that women’s political opinions are more “catty” than men’s.

May Obradovich use her agenda-setting power wisely.

I’ve posted the Register’s press release announcing Obradovich’s promotion after the jump.

I’m not watching it live, but I will update this post later with some clips and commentary.

In the meantime, share your thoughts about what the president is saying tonight.

UPDATE: I am swamped with preparations for the Natural Living Expo and didn’t watch the replay of the press conference.

Sam Stein wrote up the story for Huffington Post.

TomP had an interesting take on Obama’s comments about how we should not demonize investors.

Beltway journalists seem to think the big story of the night was whom the president didn’t call on, as opposed to what he said. They do like to make everything about themselves.

SECOND UPDATE: Todd Beeton’s liveblog at MyDD was good.

The Des Moines Register reported on Tuesday that David Yepsen will be the new director of the Paul Simon Public Policy Institute at Southern Illinois University at Carbondale:

Carolyn Washburn, the Register’s editor and vice president, said the newspaper would miss the veteran political writer, who has been with the Register since 1973, and the newspaper’s senior political columnist since 2000.

“As a political journalist in Iowa, David has really done it all, for decades,” Washburn said.

Yepsen has been a familiar face to Iowans. He became the Register’s senior political writer in 1983 and a full-time columnist in 2000. The Jefferson native and University of Iowa graduate also has been a host on Iowa Public Television’s “Iowa Press” since 1975, and a frequent commentator on national news programs.

The Southern Illinois campus newspaper confirmed the story.

Yepsen interviewed for his new job in December, around the time the Register imposed yet another round of layoffs in the newsroom. (Political cartoonist Brian Duffy was among those fired at that time. I’ve seen several of his cartoons in the Des Moines area weekly Cityview since then.)

Best of luck to Yepsen in his new position, and kudos to him for taking on a new challenge after so many years at the Register.

Any guesses on who will become the Register’s chief political columnist? The obvious play would be to promote Tom Beaumont from the newsroom, since he covers a lot of the political stories already. Or, they could move columnist Marc Hansen, who is a great writer, over to the op-ed page.

Given the Register’s difficult financial position, I doubt they will bring in a senior columnist from outside, but they could hire someone currently working at a different Gannett newspaper.

UPDATE: Marc Ambinder shares  his reflections on Yepsen and predicts that O.Kay Henderson of Radio Iowa will be “Yepsen’s heir” as the most influential Iowa journalist during the next presidential campaign.

John Deeth (“not a Yepsen fan”) discusses the end of an era from his perspective. I agree with him about so-called objective American journalism.

SECOND UPDATE: Yepsen will start his new job on April 1, according to the SIU Saluki Times:

Asked why he sought the institute position, Yepsen said, “Paul Simon’s legacy prompted me to apply. I am really interested in spending the rest of my life in public service, teaching and working with students and working in the public policy arena.

“I am a great admirer of his and I have been to the institute and the campus several times,” he added. “I like the University and the people here. Also, I grew up in a small town in Iowa that was not far different from much of Southern Illinois. When this position came open, I thought this could be a really good fit for me.”

He said the institute presents a “nice combination of academic work and public policy work,” noting it reminds him of the Harvard Kennedy School “in terms of bringing students, academicians and practitioners together to solve problems.”

That article also quotes former Senator Paul Simon’s book about his 1988 presidential campaign:

“Every four years, the chief political reporter for the Des Moines Register becomes the most important reporter in the nation. It is a position that could cause vanity and abuse. To his credit, David Yepsen handled this position with sensitivity and balance. And he worked hard.”

I wasn’t surprised in November when the Des Moines Register failed to report on opposition to former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack’s possible appointment as secretary of agriculture.

I wasn’t surprised in December when the newspaper omitted the same perspective from its piece on reaction to the news that President-elect Barack Obama was picking Vilsack for the job.

But I find this January 12 Des Moines Register article by Chase Davis quite odd. The subject is how Vilsack has relatively few ties to agribusiness. Excerpt:

Secretary of Agriculture nominee Tom Vilsack raised only a small portion of his campaign cash from farmers, grocers and others with direct ties to the agriculture industry, despite serving eight years as governor in one of the country’s most emblematic farming states, documents and fundraising data show.

From his first run for governor in 1998 to his short-lived presidential bid in 2006, Vilsack raised almost $15.8 million through contributions to his campaign and political action committees. Only about 2.3 percent, or $364,000, came directly from interests connected to agriculture.

Political observers said the small share of industry donations Vilsack received could earn him credibility and a perception of independence as he prepares for his confirmation hearing Wednesday. Others note the agricultural industry has long exerted its political influence through connections, not money.

“(Agriculture businesses) are much more human than a lot of other businesses. They have a very tight network,” said Edwin Bender, executive director of the National Institute on Money in State Politics. “Money is maybe not the prime indicator there.”

To the extent that influence follows money, Vilsack can make a convincing case that he is not beholden to the agribusiness industry – which could serve him well in the position, local experts said.

Agribusiness “will have more trouble getting everything they want, and they know it,” said Arthur Sanders, chairman of the Politics and International Relations Department at Drake University.

But if companies do convince Vilsack to support their policies within the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Vilsack “will have more credibility if he pushes for them,” Sanders said.

The article baffles me on two levels. It ranks Vilsack’s “top political donors associated with agribusiness interests,” and number one on the list is the philanthropist Doris Jean Newlin, whose husband was a vice president of Pioneer Hi-Bred International before he retired.

Newlin has made significant gifts to quite a few Democratic politicians, the Iowa Democratic Party, and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. It’s a stretch to consider her donations to Vilsack’s campaigns the most noteworthy link between Vilsack and agribusiness, just because Newlin is married to a retired vice-president of Pioneer.

What makes the article even more strange is that it does not mention biotech companies. Vilsack was an outspoken and persistent advocate for growing more genetically-engineered crops in Iowa and elsewhere. The Biotechnology Industry Organization named him governor of the year in 2001. He even used to fly on the Monsanto corporate jet. What opposition there was to Vilsack’s appointment as secretary of agriculture stemmed primarily from his many ties to biotechnology companies like Monsanto.  

Vilsack may well have fewer connections to agribusiness than others who have headed the USDA. I think the Senate should confirm him, given that he is the president’s choice, and he is certainly qualified for the job.

But it was quite a strange editorial decision by the Register to publish a whole article about Vilsack not having strong ties to corporate agriculture, while failing to mention any of his connections to the biotechnology industry. If you’re going to report a story, at least report the whole story.

Ramona Cunningham was sentenced to seven years in prison for her part in misappropriating $1.5 million in federal funds while she headed the Central Iowa Employment and Training Consortium (CIETC). Others involved in the fraud at CIETC will be sentenced later this month or next year, but presumably Cunningham will do the most time in prison, having been the central figure in the scandal.

The prison sentence seems fair; misusing funds meant for job training programs is a serious crime. I’m sure many people will say Cunningham should be punished more harshly, though. The hatred of her is out of proportion to the crimes at CIETC.

Speaking of crime and punishment, Glenn Greenwald wrote a good post contrasting the media’s exhaustive coverage of Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich’s alleged crimes with the near-total silence about the Senate Armed Services Committee’s recent finding:

The bipartisan Senate Armed Services Committee report issued on Thursday — which documents that “former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other senior U.S. officials share much of the blame for detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba” and “that Rumsfeld’s actions were ‘a direct cause of detainee abuse’ at Guantanamo and ‘influenced and contributed to the use of abusive techniques … in Afghanistan and Iraq’” — raises an obvious and glaring question:  how can it possibly be justified that the low-level Army personnel carrying out these policies at Abu Ghraib have been charged, convicted and imprisoned, while the high-level political officials and lawyers who directed and authorized these same policies remain free of any risk of prosecution?  

Great question.

UPDATE: CIETC’s former chief accountant Karen Tesdell got sentenced to two years on Tuesday for looking the other way as her colleagues misappropriated money.

Marc Hansen’s latest column reviews the arguments Cunningham’s attorney Bill Kutmus used during the sentencing hearing. He said his client wasn’t the ringleader and should not be punished more harshly than John Bargman (CIETC’s former chief operating officer, who will be sentenced next year). He also said Cunningham was a victim of sexism, and that U.S. prosecutors had treated her unfairly.

I agree that misogyny was driving a lot of the intense hatred of Cunningham. But I have some advice for her: next time you decide to commit a bunch of federal crimes, strike a plea bargain like Bargman did if you don’t want to do serious prison time.

Look at Mitchell Wade. He bribed a member of Congress with more than $1.8 million and just got sentenced to only 30 months in prison, because he cooperated with prosecutors.  

Across the country, newspapers are trying to save money by cutting experienced staff and relying more on syndicated material. The Des Moines Register continued the trend by announcing dozens of layoffs this week. Brian Duffy, who has been the newspaper’s political cartoonist for 25 years, was among those let go.

A brief story in the Register’s business section on Thursday noted,

The Register was said to be the only newspaper in the United States with an editorial cartoon on the front page. The tradition extended back to at least the early 20th century, according to Register archives. Ted Rall, the president of the Association of American Editorial Cartoonists, estimated that about 20 editorial cartoonists have been laid off or retired in the last three years without being replaced.

Meanwhile, the Register’s chief political columnist, David Yepsen, interviewed this week for the position of director of Southern Illinois University’s Paul Simon Public Policy Institute. You can’t blame him for looking around. After several rounds of layoffs, the atmosphere in the Register’s newsroom must be quite depressing.

The Iowa City Press-Citizen also announced job cuts today.

My sympathies go out to all those whose jobs were eliminated. I was “downsized” myself once (two days before Thanksgiving), and even with a good severance package it is a very demoralizing experience.

UPDATE: I was with friends tonight who were outraged that the Register turned its back on a long history of featuring political cartoons prominently. They are old enough to remember the work of “Ding” Darling, who drew cartoons for the Register for much of the first half of the 20th century, and Frank Miller, who was the Register’s cartoonist from 1953 to 1983.

SECOND UPDATE: Blogger Ron Maly, who worked at the Register during the 1980s, lists others who got laid off this week at the Register. They include outdoor writer Julie Probasco-Sowers. Maly agrees with an unnamed acquaintance who predicts that firing Duffy “will cost the Register a lot more than they’ll save with his salary.”

THIRD UPDATE: Jason Hancock reports that the Register will also reduce or eliminate various special sections. The annual RAGBRAI preview will be among the discontinued publications.

Anyone who’s been reading the Des Moines Register for the past few years knows that the editorial board endorses incumbents more often than not, in state-level, city council and school board elections as well as federal races. They like seniority and experience in their elected officials.

For those reasons, the Register has typically endorsed a few Republican incumbents despite the editorial board’s generally liberal orientation. With neither Jim Leach nor Chuck Grassley on Iowa ballots this year, I was concerned that the Register would back at least one of the Republicans running for Congress–perhaps Tom Latham by virtue of his position on the House Appropriations Committee.

As it turned out, the Register endorsed every Iowa Democrat running for Congress for the first time that I can remember (going back several decades).

The endorsements were markedly different in tone, however.

A glowing endorsement of Bruce Braley argued,

this ambitious and energetic congressman sets the standard for what Iowans should expect from their representatives. […] We can’t fit everything Braley has accomplished his first term into the space of this editorial, but it’s obvious he’s worked tirelessly.

Their list of Braley’s achievements in his first term didn’t even include his work on bringing passenger rail to Dubuque and the Quad Cities.

The Register’s editors concluded that Dave Loebsack has worked hard and also deserves re-election in the second district, but it’s clear that they liked Republican Mariannette Miller-Meeks a lot:

She’s smart, has in-depth knowledge of health care, has served in the military and has a compelling life story, which includes leaving home at the age of 16 and working her way through school.

Like most campaign newcomers, including Loebsack two years ago, her knowledge of many issues is shallow. But her background indicates she’d come up to speed quickly.

Dissatisfied with Loebsack, she says she took it upon herself to do something about it and embarked on the race without party recruitment.

If Miller-Meeks doesn’t prevail, she should consider running for another public office. Iowa has a shortage of women in politics, and Miller-Meeks’ life experience and potential for leadership could serve the state well.

I don’t think I’ve ever read anything like the Register’s endorsement editorial for Iowa’s third district. The paper favored Leonard Boswell’s Republican opponent in 2006 and Ed Fallon in the Democratic primary this year, so I thought there was a decent chance the Register would endorse Kim Schmett, Boswell’s challenger this fall. Instead, they published this under the headline “Iowans deserve more from 12-year incumbent”:

Voters have a dilemma in the 3rd District.

After 12 years of light accomplishment and wrongheaded votes, Democratic Rep. Leonard Boswell doesn’t deserve to return to Congress.

But his Republican challenger, Kim Schmett of Clive, also fails to make a compelling case that he deserves a congressional seat.

Iowans deserve better.

However, the Register’s editorial board subscribes to the philosophy that if voters must decide, so must we. So the Register gives a weak nod to Boswell, with a list of expectations:

– During his next term, Boswell should use his seniority and the experience he’s gained to take a more active role in representing Iowa’s interests.

– He should announce early in the term that it will be his last, retiring with Iowans’ thanks for a career dedicated to public service.

It goes on, but you get the drift. I hope Boswell will take the newspaper’s advice after he wins re-election next week.

Evaluating the fourth district candidates, the Register determined that Becky Greenwald has the potential to be a strong, energetic leader. Tom Latham has 14 years of experience and sits on the House Appropriations Committee (which is the main reason the Fort Dodge Messenger and Mason City Globe-Gazette endorsed him), but the Register’s editors found Latham “hasn’t developed the kind of in-depth expertise on issues or demonstrated the national leadership Iowans should expect from their investment in his seniority.”

Making the call in the fifth district race was easy for an editorial board that gave Steve King the benefit of the doubt by endorsing him in 2002 and 2004. The editors have had enough of King’s “divisive, fear-mongering commentary”:

Fifth District voters should not send him back to Washington. Fortunately, they have a promising alternative: Electing Democrat Rob Hubler, a retired minister from Council Bluffs who has brought himself up to speed and staked out reasonable positions on issues Iowans care about, including the Iraq war, energy and health care.

In the U.S. Senate race, the Register also had no trouble choosing a candidate and urged Tom Harkin to be ambitious in his fifth term:

Iowans should without hesitation cast their ballots to return Democrat Tom Harkin for his fifth term in the U.S. Senate. With that investment in seniority, however, comes heightened expectations for him to lead in shaping landmark legislation that will benefit Iowans and the nation for decades to come. […]

In his fifth term, Senator Harkin should aim high and set aside partisan sniping for statesmanship. On the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, he should channel his passions for wellness and nutrition into forging legislation that provides health care for all, at long last bringing America into the company of every other industrialized nation. On that same committee, he should shepherd changes in education policy to better prepare all American students for a competitive global economy. And as Agriculture Committee chairman, he should continue his work to expand agriculture’s role in producing alternative forms of energy, thus reducing dependence on oil, while protecting soil, water and air. He has the right vision for overhauling federal farm programs: Instead of paying farmers for what they grow, pay them for how well they grow it.

These would be transformational changes in American life and government: Providing health care for all. Expanding educational opportunities for all of America’s children. Lessening the nation’s dependence on oil while better protecting the environment.

Spearheading significant progress in these areas would create a more compassionate, just and prosperous society – and be crowning achievements for any senator.

I look forward to finding out what Harkin can accomplish as a senior member of a Congressional majority under a Democratic president. He’s been in the Senate for a long time, but Democrats controlled the White House and Congress for only two of those years.

The Register has endorsed some Republicans running for the state legislative or Polk County office, but they’d like to see a Democratic sweep in the federal races.

This is an open thread for discussing any significant media endorsements in races at any level this year.

I’ll update later after watching Barack Obama’s 30-minute infomercial, which is running on CBS, NBC and Fox. Meanwhile, share your thoughts in the comments.

I have to agree with Chris Bowers that it is ludicrous for some analysts to suggest that a half-hour of scripted prime-time national television, which will not be answered by Republicans, could turn out to be a negative for Obama.

Becky Greenwald is running a 60-second commercial immediately before Obama’s ad on the CBS and NBC affiliates in Des Moines and Mason City. It’s unfortunate that she hasn’t been running tv ads for the last few weeks, but if she has very limited funds to spend on television, this was a smart place to spend them.

UPDATE: I have no idea how many undecided voters were watching (I wouldn’t be surprised if most of the viewers were supporting Obama already), but Obama made his case very effectively. If you’ve donated to Obama’s campaign, I think you should be happy about how wisely he is spending your money.

Greenwald’s ad was outstanding and could not have been more clear about the contrast between her and Tom Latham. Click the link to watch the commercial, which made clear that Latham is a Republican who’s voted with George Bush 94 percent of the time–even more often than John McCain. Meanwhile, the ad showed the word Democrat next to Greenwald’s name as the voice-over stated that she is a Democrat who will support Barack Obama’s policies.

I hope they will be able to air this commercial during the final days of the campaign. Please donate to Greenwald’s campaign if you can afford to, so that more viewers will be exposed to this message.

SECOND UPDATE: A fellow former volunteer for John Edwards observed in a private communication that Edwards-type messaging was all over that Obama tv ad. I agree, but the difference is that Edwards would (in my opinion) never have raised enough money to run a 30-minute ad on nationwide television during prime time (even if he had rejected public financing for the general election).

Here’s the script for Becky Greenwald’s new ad. The visuals mark her as a Democrat and Latham as a Republican even more clearly, but you get the idea from this:

Voice-over: In Washington, whose voted with George Bush 94% of the time?

For more tax loopholes for big oil?

Less regulation on Wall Street?

Even rewarding companies that send Iowa jobs overseas?

Republican Tom Latham, that’s who.  

That’s right.  Tom Latham supports George Bush even more than John

McCain does.

Tom Latham supports George Bush 94% of the time. So Tom Latham won’t support Barack Obama’s changes in Washington.

Tom Latham won’t support Barack Obama. But Democrat Becky Greenwald will.

She’ll help Barack Obama protect our savings by cracking crack down on Wall Street.

Promote Iowa-based energy like wind and bio-fuels to end our dependence on foreign oil.  

And protect Iowa jobs by ending the tax breaks that send them overseas.

Becky Greenwald is on our side and Barack Obama’s.

And Tom Latham?  Well, you get the picture?

GREENWALD: I’m Becky Greenwald and I approve this message.  

It’s time we put Iowa’s families first.

Two websites are keeping comprehensive lists of newspaper endorsements for Barack Obama and John McCain:

Editor and Publisher:

The Obama-Biden ticket maintains its strong lead in the race for daily newspaper endorsements, by 105 to 33, a better than 3-1 margin, […]

In a real shocker, two solid Bush papers in 2004, the Houston Chronicle and Austin American-Statesman, also came out for Obama today. So did the more traditionally Democratic the News & Obsever in Raleigh and the Orlando Sentinel, both in key battleground states.

Obama’s lopsided margin, including most of the major papers that have decided so far, is in stark contrast to John Kerry barely edging George W. Bush in endorsements in 2004 by 213 to 205.

Cheers to the Mason City Globe-Gazette, one of more than two dozen newspapers that endorsed Obama despite backing Bush four years ago.

DemConWatch’s newspaper endorsement list is particularly helpful because they indicate which party the newspaper favored in 2004, and they have a separate column listing all the newspapers in the top 100 by circulation that have not yet endorsed a presidential candidate.

Many newspapers have cited McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin as a reason for endorsing Obama. That includes Republican papers like the Houston Chronicle and the Chicago Tribune, which is endorsing a Democratic presidential candidate for the first time in 161 years.

I wouldn’t exaggerate the importance of newspaper endorsements, but this trend underscores how many Republicans have lost confidence in the McCain/Palin ticket.

I was shocked when an old family friend told me over the weekend that he’d voted for Obama. He caucused for McCain in January, and he doesn’t think Obama will do a very good job, but he didn’t want to take the chance of Palin ever becoming president.

Becky Greenwald and Tom Latham just debated on WHO radio. Chase Martyn liveblogged the event at Iowa Independent.

I will have more to say on this tomorrow after I listen to the tape again, but here are my initial thoughts.

There were no major gaffes, and both candidates presented their cases well. Greenwald did a great job of staying on topic and bringing up the relevant facts on a range of subjects.

She repeatedly mentioned his loyal Republican voting record, including his many votes to continue the war in Iraq, and promised that she would get to work for constituents right away.

So, when Latham brought up the bill he co-sponsored to deal with the nursing shortage in Iowa (more on that here), Greenwald said it’s a good bill and she hopes it will get out of committee. But she added that Iowa has had a nursing shortage for some time, and if she’s elected she won’t wait 13 years to try to deal with this problem.

Latham kept going back to his vote against the bailout in order to depict Greenwald as someone who would have given George Bush $700 billion to spend with no accountability. But will the voters let Latham evade responsibility for his long history of voting for Bush’s economic policies and deregulation of the banking sector?

WHO’s selection of call-in questions was outrageous. I will try to count later, but the overwhelming majority of questioners were antagonistic toward Greenwald. Some of them ranted without any apparent question.

WHO also made sure Latham got the last word during both the opening and closing statements.

I don’t know why I am surprised, since WHO has a nearly all-conservative lineup of talk radio shows, but I expected at least an attempt on their part to look balanced.

If they didn’t want to have journalists ask questions during the debate, they should have asked listeners to submit written questions beforehand, so they could have selected more concise and coherent questions, with more of a political balance. I give Greenwald a lot of credit for not getting thrown off her game by some of the callers who were so hostile.

The station will put up the podcast of this debate on their website sometime tomorrow.

If you can pick up WHO radio on 1040 AM, tune in tonight (October 6) from 7:00 pm to 8:00 pm to hear Representative Tom Latham debate Democratic challenger Becky Greenwald.

I will be curious to see how much the discussion focuses on local versus national issues.

Earlier this year, the National Republican Congressional Committee advised Republican incumbents in the U.S. House to make their campaigns about local issues and personal qualities. Latham’s first radio advertisement was about national energy policy, but his two television commercials have had more of a local focus on Iowa’s nursing shortage and Iowa’s small businesses. (I will have more to say on the latest ad in the next couple of days.)

It is looking more and more like a big Democratic year, so it’s in Greenwald’s interest to show how Latham has consistently backed the failed policies of the Bush administration and the Republican leadership in Congress. Latham avoids mentioning his own political party in his advertising and on his website.

I’ll also be listening to see how well the moderator keeps Latham and Greenwald on topic. Jim Lehrer mostly did a good job moderating the first debate between Barack Obama and John McCain, but Gwen Ifill was a disaster during the vice-presidential debate last Thursday.

Ifill went on Meet the Press this morning and complained about Sarah Palin blowing her off, but what did she expect? She showed poor judgment by agreeing to moderate this debate without revealing that she was writing a book about Obama (to be released on Inauguration Day in January). Naturally, Republicans spent much of the last week warning that Ifill would be biased against Palin, since her book sales are likely to be better if Obama wins the election.

As a result, Ifill had to bend over backwards NOT to appear to be picking on Palin. And that played right into Palin’s strategy of ignoring the questions and reciting her prepared talking points.

Ifill should never have been in that chair on Thursday, because she was not able to do her job properly.

I sincerely hope that WHO Radio forces Latham and Greenwald to answer the questions asked, following up if and when the candidates are evasive.

Here’s the rest of Greenwald’s public schedule for Monday:

Fort Dodge Rotary Club

12 PM – 1 PM

Starlight Village Hotel

Highway 169 and Highway 7

Fort Dodge, Iowa

Mac’s World Interview

3 PM

98.3 WOW-FM

WHO Radio Debate with Tom Latham

7 PM – 8 PM

WHO 1040 AM

Over the weekend numerous media reported that Republican vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin did not plan to take questions from journalists before the election. Either those reports were inaccurate or John McCain’s campaign felt compelled to backpedal, because ABC’s Charlie Gibson will interview Palin later this week:

The McCain camp did not say why it chose Mr. Gibson, but it had selected him last week as the only major journalist to interview Mr. McCain himself during the Republican convention in St. Paul.

After his interview with Mr. McCain had aired, Mr. Gibson posted on his blog that he had “fretted” about how to approach the many personal issues that had come up about Ms. Palin and decided to ignore them.

“The major development in his campaign obviously is his surprise choice of Sarah Palin,” Mr. Gibson wrote. “It took some time in thinking about it, but I finally decided not to even bring up the issues with her family, for they are issues of family and should remain so. […]

“The relevant questions about Governor Palin, the questions that go to her suitability to serve as vice president, all relate to her experience, or lack thereof, and her policy positions as a mayor and governor in Alaska. Once I decided to restrict the Palin questions to those areas, the interview kind of formed itself,” Mr. Gibson wrote.

It’s not yet clear whether Palin will agree to a press conference, where she would have to face many reporters at the same time.

I have little sense of Gibson’s style as an interviewer, but I do think it’s right to focus on Palin’s inexperience and stands on the issues as opposed to her family matters.

Details to follow from the Obama campaign. It will be Biden’s first Iowa visit since the caucuses. Expect a very big crowd.

Here’s a good diary about a Biden town-hall meeting in Sarasota this week, with video. He still answers questions for an hour or more at his campaign stops.

Speaking of which, John McCain’s campaign has announced that vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin will not take questions from journalists before the election. No press conferences, no Sunday-morning talk shows. Will this force journalists to drop their questioning of Palin’s record in Alaska and familiarity with basic matters of domestic and foreign policy?

Palin won’t be in seclusion–she’ll be doing about 30 fundraisers in the next 60 days.

UPDATE: Enjoy this post by Al Rodgers about a Biden event on Friday. Click the link to watch a short video clip or read the transcript.

SECOND UPDATE: Here are the details about the Biden event:

Rally with Joe Biden

Paul R. Knapp Animal Learning Center

Iowa State Fairgrounds

East University Ave. and East 30th St.

Des Moines, IA 50317

Monday, September 8th

Doors Open: 2:15 p.m.

Program Time: 3:15 p.m.

RSVP

http://iowa.barackobama.com/bi…

The event is free and open to the public; tickets are not required but an RSVP is encouraged. Space is available on a first come, first served basis.

For security reasons, do not bring bags. Please limit personal items. No signs or banners allowed.

Jason Hancock has a story up about the latest round of cuts in the Des Moines Register newsroom. The people who have lost their jobs after working hard for years have my sympathy.

I was downsized during the 1990s. It was lousy to feel that far-off management did not respect the value of my work, or indeed the work of anyone around me, since my whole department was cut.

If you don’t read the Register much, you might not care about the story. Gannett had already damaged newsgathering and investigative reporting so much over the past 20-odd years, what difference could this make?

However, the political elite of this state still read the Register, as do reporters for other media. The newspaper still has the power to set the agenda for political debate and political coverage, only it will be doing so with a more skeletal staff.

I’m not optimistic about what coverage of next year’s legislative session will look like. I don’t know whether someone else will cover the Iowa delegation in Congress the way Jane Norman did, or whether we’ll just hear less about what our representatives are doing.

Even before this round of layoffs, the Register was slow to pick up on wrongdoing at the Central Iowa Employment and Training Consortium. Will the Register have the flexibility to assign anyone to investigative work, or will the next CIETC scandal, or the the failure to fix the Birdland levee in Des Moines, never be properly researched?

The Cityview weekly in Des Moines publishes some good investigative reporting, but that is no substitute for a strong daily newspaper in Iowa’s capital city.

Hancock says the mood in the Register’s newsroom is gloomy. Even without being directly affected by these layoffs, I’m feeling downbeat too.

It’s hard to keep up with all the misconduct in the Bush administration. This week four Democratic senators called for the resignation of  Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Stephen L. Johnson. Evidence emerged that Johnson lied to Congress about why he denied California’s request for a waiver of the Clean Air Act last December. Two senators are also asking for a perjury investigation of Johnson. Click the link for more details and background.

California has adopted tougher emissions standards for cars and trucks, and other states have followed suit, but the standards cannot be implemented unless the EPA approves the waiver request. Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller and at least 18 other state attorneys general have joined California in suing the EPA over this issue.

I always laugh when Republicans who claim to be for states’ rights object when states try to impose stronger environmental standards than the federal government. But what Johnson did was worse than hypocrisy. In denying California’s waiver request, Johnson blocked state efforts to deal with pollution from motor vehicles, even though surface transportation is the second-largest contributor to U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.

You would think this scandal would warrant some media coverage, but I’d never have heard of this story if I hadn’t read about it on political blogs.

I’ve never watched an episode of “Big Brother” and don’t ever plan to, but for some reason part of this Associated Press article on the new season caught my eye when the Des Moines Register published it:

Libra Thompson, a married 31-year-old human resources representative from Spring, Texas, left behind her husband and three children — including 4-month-old twins — to participate in “Big Brother 10.” During production, Thompson and the other “Big Brother” contestants are prohibited from communicating with the outside world.

Hang on, I thought–doesn’t the taping of this show go on for a long time? I flipped back to the beginning of the story and found that indeed, contestants are isolated in a house for three months.

When I started writing this post, I looked for the link to the AP story to see if it mentioned the age of Thompson’s older child, and I realized that the Register’s print version cut out part of the relevant passage:

Libra Thompson, a married 31-year-old human resources representative from Spring, Texas, left behind her husband and three children — including 4-month-old twins — to participate in “Big Brother 10.” During production, Thompson and the other “Big Brother” contestants are prohibited from communicating with the outside world.

“It’s better for me that they’re younger,” said Thompson of her newborns. “At four months old, they’re not going to remember much. It’s probably going to be a little bit more difficult for my 4-year-old. However, I’m going to stay focused and remember the reason I’m here, and that’s the cash. That will help me.”

That is a big trauma to inflict on your children for money. I know that $500,000 is a lot of money, but Thompson isn’t a homeless, unemployed person who has no way to feed her family besides appearing on this show.

I had to laugh when I read this description of her strategy:

Strategy: “I’m intuitive. I think I’ll be able figure out how to push people’s buttons.”

I wonder if Ms. Thompson is “intuitive” enough to realize that disappearing for three months could permanently affect her children’s bond with her and ability to form secure attachments generally.

I wouldn’t seek to impose my parenting style on others. I wouldn’t judge any woman for going back to work when her children are young, or for taking overnight trips away from young children (for business or vacation). But to deprive children of the sight, sound, smell and touch of their mother for three full months, for no reason other than a desire to make money, is deeply disturbing.

I assume the children will receive loving attention from their father and substitute caregivers. Nonetheless, I worry that such a lengthy separation from the mother could have lasting effects along the lines of those described in this scholarly paper by a psychologist:

Bowlby (1973) identified three phases of a normal response to separation. The child first protests the loss and uses attachment behaviors to try and bring back his mother. When Mother does not return, the child seems to despair, but still awaits her return. Eventually he seems to detach and appears to lose interest. However, attachment behaviors will return upon reunion if the separation has not been too extended. Following reunion, the child whose parent has been appropriately responsive to his attachment behaviors will often cling to the parent, demonstrating anxiety at any hint of separation.

Bowlby’s theory provides a new perspective on clinging behavior, or separation anxiety. In contrast to traditional psychoanalytic models which viewed separation anxiety as a displacement of some other fear (Bowlby, 1988), Bowlby saw anxious attachment as the result of real or threatened separations or temporary abandonments by caretaking figures during childhood (Bowlby, 1973). When a child knows that an attachment figure will be available whenever he needs a secure base, he will develop a lifelong ability to tolerate separations well, and will handle new situations confidently. Lacking such knowledge, he will demonstrate anxious attachment and general apprehensiveness at new ventures.

The availability of an attachment figure during childhood also influences the person’s response to losses. When a frightened child needs his mother but ultimately finds that he is abandoned and alone, he protects himself from further suffering by detaching himself from any awareness of his feelings and needs. Summarizing studies of children who underwent prolonged separations, Bowlby (1980) noted detachment as the final stage of dealing with a separation. During detachment, the child stops emitting attachment behavior and even turns away from attachment figures when they return (as Robertson’s [1952] film of a two-year-old’s week long hospitalization and separation from his parents poignantly demonstrates).

Bowlby saw detachment as the result of a deactivation of the system of attachment behavior. By defensively excluding from awareness “…the signals, arising from both inside and outside the person, that would activate their attachment behavior and that would enable them both to love and to experience being loved” (Bowlby, 1988, pp. 34-25), children experiencing prolonged separations can block attachment behaviors and its associated affects. Once established as a defensive process, detachment then becomes the child’s characteristic coping style.

I don’t care if Thompson “turned it out” during her audition for Big Brother. In my opinion, the producers of this reality show should not have selected a mother with such young children as a contestant. But hey, anything to attract an advertiser-friendly demographic like thirty-something working moms.

I find it more revealing that there’s no public outcry from the self-appointed defenders of “family values.” Why are social conservatives not calling for a boycott of CBS or its advertisers if the producers of “Big Brother” do not send this contestant home to her children?

Apparently a show that celebrates leaving small children in pursuit of money is not as worthy of condemnation as various sitcoms and drama programs that have been called anti-Christian.  

This Associated Press story has the worst analysis of a poll I’ve seen in a while (which is saying something): Pet owners prefer McCain over Obama

Click the link to read about an AP-Yahoo! poll that showed pet owners prefer McCain, 42 percent to 37 percent, while people who don’t have a pet prefer Obama 48 percent to 34 percent.

Associated Press writer Randolph E. Schmid asserts that the “pet-owning public seems to have noticed the difference” between McCain, who has many pets, and Obama, who has none. There are some silly quotes from pet owners about the fine characteristics of people who have pets at home.

I’m not a pollster or a statistician, but without even trying hard I can think of five confounding variables that may have more to do with the results than pet owners identifying with McCain because he also has animals at home.

1. Are wealthier people more likely to have a pet? Because that group would skew more Republican than the population at large.

2. The same goes for people who own their own homes, who are probably more likely to own pets than people who are homeless or live in apartments. Remember, many landlords don’t allow pets in apartments.

3. Are married people more likely to keep a pet than single people? Republicans tend to do better among married voters than single voters.

4. The AP piece mentions that dog owners are particularly slanted toward McCain. Well, most hunters own at least one dog, and people who keep a gun at home are more likely to vote Republican than people who live in a home with no guns.

5. Are men more likely to be dog owners than cat owners? The gender gap in voting behavior has been documented for decades.

The AP article doesn’t bring up any most of these potential confounding variables. [CORRECTION: Buried down at the bottom of the piece, the AP article does mention that a higher proportion of dog owners are married, compared to the population at large, and that white people are more likely than black people to own dogs.]

Despite being a dog-lover myself, I didn’t even know that Obama had no pets, and I’m well-informed politically. I doubt that even 1 percent of Americans will make up their minds based on whether a presidential candidate has a pet.

UPDATE: The “mystery pollster” Mark Blumenthal posted his entertaining and informative take on this story. He also links to this Google search showing how many mainstream news outlets ran with the AP’s misleading but “irresistibly cute lead.”

Michael Gartner, who as NBC News president put Tim Russert in charge of the network’s Washington bureau and later in the moderator’s seat at Meet the Press, wrote a moving essay about Russert for the Des Moines weekly Cityview.

I’m not going to pull any quotes. Just read the whole thing.

UPDATE: Cityview link isn’t working, but the piece also ran in USA Today:

http://www.usatoday.com/life/p…

NBC commentator and "Meet the Press" host Tim Russert died today of a heart attack at the age of 58. It's a frightening reminder that no one can ever be certain of living to see the sun rise tomorrow.

Post your thoughts and memories of Russert's work here.

UPDATE: MisterOpus1’s diary is worth reading: “Tomorrow, Doc. I know what I have to do. I’m starting tomorrow.”

http://www.dailykos.com/storyo…

Ramona Cunningham, the former head of the Central Iowa Employment and Training Consortium (CIETC), is standing trial now for her alleged involvement in misspending about $1.5 million at that agency.

Writing in the Des Moines Register on Saturday, Marc Hansen is disturbed by the over-the-top hatred for Cunningham, who after all “did not murder, kidnap, rape or torture anyone.” He quotes an anonymous poster on the Register’s website, who fantasized about selling lottery tickets to see who gets to flip the switch to shock Cunningham, and who gets to turn up the voltage.

Ramona rancor goes beyond the Internet, though.

It seeps into radio talk and water cooler conversation. Like mucky river water, it has risen to an unhealthy level.

Where does it come from? Some of it comes from a pervasive distrust of government and the belief that sneaky public servants can get away with anything.

CEOs who work for the big for-profit companies seem to get more love. I’m not even sure Jeffrey Skilling, the evil Enron genius, faced the same level of public ridicule.

No, he didn’t. Nor do the executives of defense contractors who misspend billions in public money attract the same kind of vitriol.

I’ve got the answer for you, Mr. Hansen. Misogyny is driving the Cunningham hate train.

People aren’t posting their violent fantasies about extracting revenge on the men who had a hand in the wrongdoing at CIETC. If the person standing trial were named Robert Cunningham, this would be just another boring story about public servants embezzling funds that should have gone toward serving the public.

Her alleged sexual affairs with men involved in the CIETC scandal are nothing to be proud of, but no one is talking about selling tickets to watch those men get tortured.

Similarly, politics may be a contact sport, but if this year’s hard-fought Democratic nominating contest had involved two men, I do not think the commentary would have degenerated to the level it did. (More on that in this great post by Natasha Chart.)

Many women who voted for Barack Obama have nonetheless been disturbed by the sometimes violent hatred certain Obama supporters have expressed toward Hillary Clinton.

My limited personal experience on the internet also suggests that a small but vocal group of men quickly ratchet up the hate level when a woman is involved.

Last year I used to comment sometimes at the Cyclone Conservatives blog (as did a few other liberals). This was tame stuff. I would point out, for instance, that calling the Democratic health care proposals “socialized medicine” revealed a lack of understanding about the difference between “socialized medicine” (such as the Veterans Administration), single-payer health care (where the government pays but does not employ doctors and run hospitals), and imposing stronger regulations on private health insurers (which is what most of the Democrats proposed).

One or more anonymous posters at Cyclone Conservatives started attacking me in comment threads as a “skanky ho” and so on, and even posted creepy threats about following my children. It was so out of line that Don McDowell, the publisher of Cyclone Conservatives, shut down comments for a few days and issued a stern warning that threatening comments would not be tolerated. I did not observe that kind of response to the male Democrats who sometimes waded into the comment threads at that blog.

Hansen observed,

A man in eastern Iowa kills his wife, his children and himself and people say nice things about him. That’s fine. I’m sure the man had many good qualities.

During the past year or so, though, I can’t remember anyone saying anything nice about Cunningham, who can’t possibly be the worst person in the world.

No, she’s not the worst person in the world. She’s just the kind of person that certain sick minds love having an excuse to hate.

Yesterday's New York Times posted a misleading article that uses the relationship between SEIU President Andy Stern and Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott as evidence of a “slowing down” of the Wal-Mart campaigns. NYT registration required– it's also re-posted at HuffPo.)

While we cannot speak for Wal-Mart Watch, everyone should know WakeUpWalMart.com has NO intention of letting Wal-Mart off the hook.  None. Zero. Zilch.

The mainstream media’s atrocious coverage of this presidential election campaign should concern every Democrat, no matter which candidate was your first choice.

While it’s no surprise anymore to see pundits overwhelmingly supporting Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton, even I was shocked to read this diary by Clinton supporter alegre.

She pointed out this post by Time magazine’s blogger Mark Halperin, who is about as mainstream as they come and whose blog is probably read by almost every journalist covering this campaign. The post is called, “You Can’t Make This Up,” and here is the entire text:

Hillary Clinton enthusiastically picked a filly named Eight Belles to win the Kentucky Derby and compared herself to the horse. Eight Belles finished second. The winner was the favorite, Big Brown.

Eight Belles collapsed immediately after crossing the finish line, and was euthanized shortly thereafter.

Ha ha–get it? The woman picked the female horse to win the race, but not only did that horse lose to the big brown front-runner, she had to be put down afterwards! You can’t make this up!

Does anyone think Halperin’s editors would have let a comparable post slip through?

You Can’t Make This Up

Barack Obama enthusiastically picked a horse named Great Black Hope to win the Kentucky Derby and compared himself to the horse. Great Black Hope finished second. The winner was the favorite, Flyer.

Great Black Hope collapsed immediately after crossing the finish line, and was euthanized shortly thereafter.

No, they wouldn’t, and it’s unlikely any journalist would even try to make fun of Obama identifying with a horse that lost and had to be put down after a race.

Sick.

Poligirl wrote a good diary about an op-ed piece by Elizabeth Edwards in today’s New York Times: “Bowling 1, Health Care 0.”

She slammed the media for its superficial coverage of the presidential campaign during the past year, and particularly during the weeks leading up to the Pennsylvania primary:

Did you, for example, ever know a single fact about Joe Biden’s health care plan? Anything at all? But let me guess, you know Barack Obama’s bowling score. We are choosing a president, the next leader of the free world. We are not buying soap, and we are not choosing a court clerk with primarily administrative duties.

Political junkie that I am, I do know something about Joe Biden’s health care plan (no thanks to the mainstream media). Elizabeth Edwards tells it like it is:

What’s more, the news media cut candidates like Joe Biden out of the process even before they got started. Just to be clear: I’m not talking about my husband. I’m referring to other worthy Democratic contenders. Few people even had the chance to find out about Joe Biden’s health care plan before he was literally forced from the race by the news blackout that depressed his poll numbers, which in turn depressed his fund-raising.

And it’s not as if people didn’t want this information. In focus groups that I attended or followed after debates, Joe Biden would regularly be the object of praise and interest: “I want to know more about Senator Biden,” participants would say.

But it was not to be. Indeed, the Biden campaign was covered more for its missteps than anything else. Chris Dodd, also a serious candidate with a distinguished record, received much the same treatment. I suspect that there was more coverage of the burglary at his campaign office in Hartford than of any other single event during his run other than his entering and leaving the campaign.

Who is responsible for the veil of silence over Senator Biden? Or Senator Dodd? Or Gov. Tom Vilsack? Or Senator Sam Brownback on the Republican side?

The decision was probably made by the same people who decided that Fred Thompson was a serious candidate.

I said many times last year that if Biden had the media hype Obama was getting, he would be a strong contender for the nomination. He had a great stump speech and performed better in every debate than Obama did, but all you heard from the leading analysts was that Biden was a gaffe machine.

Thanks again to poligirl for including a link to an audio interview of Elizabeth Edwards talking about her op-ed piece.

How many presidential campaigns will our infotainment complex get wrong before they finally give people the news coverage they deserve?

Last month, while writing about Iowa getting an “F” grade for its open-records law, I commented:

The Register’s editorial board writes a lot about open-records law, and I give them credit for that. Unfortunately, under Gannett’s ownership, the Register hasn’t devoted nearly enough resources to solid investigative reporting.

I wish the editors were assigning more reporters to dig into the information that’s already publicly available.

Former Register editorial page editor Gil Cranberg develops that thought in an op-ed for the independent weekly Cityview, which asks why journalists did not uncover wrongdoing at the Central Iowa Employment and Training Consortium (CIETC):

The “CIETC scandal” was truly scandalous – as we’re reminded by the trials that kicked off last week – but it’s a mistake to blame it on a lack of “transparency” or to make it a poster child for Senate File 2378. The overpayments to CIETC executives were hiding in plain sight. The state auditor found them, and made a fuss, without having to issue subpoenas. For all of the ink spilled about CIETC I’m not aware of any that was used to explain how and why the press missed the huge overpayments until many months later when the auditor cried foul.

Sure, it helps to have strong laws to let the sunshine in. But inexperienced citizens can only do so much to uncover wrongdoing. If sunshine laws are to be effective, they have to be implemented by a press with the staff and space to make people sit up and take notice.

Unfortunately, the press is deep into retrenchment mode. Notice how page widths have narrowed? That means less space for news coverage. It’s the rare paper that trumpets how many fewer reporters, copy editors and editors it has, but loss of staff is unmistakable.

In the same issue of Cityview, the author of the “Civic Skinny” column delights in noting that the Des Moines Register just got shut out of the Pulitzers again,

as it has been every year since 1991. What’s more, alack, no Gannett newspaper won a Pulitzer – or was even a finalist this year.

If you want to win a Pulitzer, it helps to put some resources into investigative reporting.

Not long ago I posted about a poorly-researched and poorly-written article by the Associated Press on the rising rate of cesarean births in Iowa.

Lisa Houchins, a mom in Des Moines who is also education director for the International Cesarean Awareness Network, responded to the same article with this letter to the editor that the Register published earlier this week:

Regarding, “More U.S. Women Delivering Babies by Caesarean Section” (March 29): According to the World Health Organization, more than half of all Caesareans in the United States could be avoided. When used properly, a Caesarean can be a life-saving procedure. When used indiscriminately, C-sections introduce unnecessary risks to mothers and infants.

Women who deliver by Caesarean are more likely to have complications, including increased pain and recovery time, infection or death. Babies delivered by Caesarean are also more likely to suffer complications.

Women with Caesareans are at increased risk for miscarriage, infertility and complications in later pregnancies. Also, their future birthing choices can be severely limited. Some hospitals (including many in Iowa) and doctors are attempting to ban vaginal births after Caesareans.

Caesareans may be safer than they were 20 years ago, but that does not make them safer than a vaginal birth. C-sections are major surgery, and they should be reserved for times when there is a true medical indication. I encourage all pregnant women to educate themselves on how to avoid a Caesarean and how to have the safest and most satisfying birth possible.

April is Cesarean Awareness Month, and the ICAN website notes:

What is Cesarean Awareness Month? An internationally recognized month of awareness about the impact of cesarean sections on mothers, babies, and families worldwide. It’s about educating yourself to the pros and cons of major abdominal surgery and the possibilities for healthy birth afterwards as well as educating yourself for prevention of cesarean section.

Cesarean awareness is for mothers who are expecting or who might choose to be in the future. It’s for daughters who don’t realize what choices are being taken away from them. It’s for scientists studying the effects of cesareans and how birth impacts our lives. It’s for grandmothers who won’t be having more children but are questioning the abdominal pains and adhesions causing damage 30 years after their cesareans.

CESAREANS are serious. There is no need for a ‘catchy phrase’ to tell us that this is a mainstream problem. It affects everyone. One in three American women every year have surgery to bring their babies into the world. These women have lifelong health effects, impacting the families that are helping them in their healing, impacting other families through healthcare costs and policies, and bringing back those same lifelong health effects to the children they bring into this world.

Be aware. Read. Learn. Ask questions. Get informed consent. Be your own advocate for the information you need to know.

There is lots of information on the ICAN website, so if you or your partner or your friend is pregnant, I encourage you to check it out. C-sections can be lifesaving procedures, but it makes sense to take reasonable steps to avoid having unnecessary surgery.

The ICAN of Central Iowa website has statistics comparing c-section rates in the largest Iowa counties and hospitals.

If you want to avoid a cesarean birth unless it is medically necessary, ask about c-section rates when you are choosing a provider.

Don’t induce labor without medical need (for instance, because you hit your due date, or because you don’t want to go into labor over a weekend), because trying to induce a cervix that isn’t ripe is more likely to lead to “failure to progress” and a resulting c-section.

Consider getting a certified doula to help with childbirth education during pregnancy and to support the mother during labor. The website of Doulas of North America explains the benefits of having a doula:

Women have complex needs during childbirth and the weeks that follow. In addition to medical care and the love and companionship provided by their partners, women need consistent, continuous reassurance, comfort, encouragement and respect. They need individualized care based on their circumstances and preferences.

DONA International doulas are educated and experienced in childbirth and the postpartum period. We are prepared to provide physical (non-medical), emotional and informational support to women and their partners during labor and birth, as well as to families in the weeks following childbirth. We offer a loving touch, positioning and comfort measures that make childbearing women and families feel nurtured and cared for.

Numerous clinical studies have found that a doula’s presence at birth

   * tends to result in shorter labors with fewer complications

   * reduces negative feelings about one’s childbirth experience

   * reduces the need for pitocin (a labor-inducing drug), forceps or vacuum extraction and cesareans

   * reduces the mother’s request for pain medication and/or epidurals

Research shows parents who receive support can:

   * Feel more secure and cared for

   * Are more successful in adapting to new family dynamics

   * Have greater success with breastfeeding

   * Have greater self-confidence

   * Have less postpartum depression

   * Have lower incidence of abuse

Click through to find links to some research. Dads, don’t worry about the doula trying to take your place during labor. My husband is a huge advocate for doulas. She doesn’t do your job–she just helps the mother with practical advice based on training and the experience of attending many births. She will not freak out to see the mother in pain, and she will be able to reassure both parents if panic sets in while labor is progressing normally.

I know women who would have ended up with c-sections if not for their doulas. In one case, the baby was presenting with the cheek rather than with the crown of the head. The medical staff were convinced a c-section was the only way to get that baby out, but the doula encouraged the mother to try leaning and squatting in some different positions during and between contractions. After a few tries, the baby shifted, and the rest of the labor was over in less than 20 minutes.

You couldn’t miss this front-page story in the Des Moines Register on Monday:

Plan to reshape Ankeny tackles troubled spots

City officials and developer DRA Properties are transforming a 1,031-acre World War II munitions plant site into a live-work-play development called Prairie Trail. They expect 10,000 people to move there by 2020.

To realize their new urbanist dream, however, the developer and others are working to eliminate concerns about the land, some of which has been designated as a Superfund site by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. It’s a designation the EPA gives to uncontrolled hazardous waste sites identified as risks to human health.

[…]

There are two primary environmental concerns within the development, said Iowa DNR and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency officials.

The most critical is the 38-acre parcel to be converted into a city park. The land was used as a landfill and industrial lagoon decades ago by the Army, John Deere and the city. The area is where production waste of mainly metal particles and oils was disposed. Spots within the site, including toxic sludge left in the old industrial lagoons, contain unsafe levels of metals such as lead, chromium, copper, arsenic, manganese and antimony, according to the EPA.

EPA officials said the metals will have to be put out of human contact. Under a proposed plan, that would be done by a combination of removing soil and sealing the ground with a thick plastic barrier and clay cap.

Today, one in 10,000 people has a chance of getting cancer from a lifetime’s worth of exposure at the site, EPA toxicologist Jeremy Johnson said. After the cleanup, he said, those odds will be one in 1 million. “Those cancer risks won’t be there,” he said.

The landfill and lagoon area is a Superfund site. It is not on the Superfund national priority list, which identifies the country’s worst hazards.

However, it is not known whether the site would qualify for the national priority list, said Gene Gunn, a branch chief in the EPA Superfund program. It is not being considered for the list, which is largely a designation for projects to receive federal money, because the parties responsible for the contamination have voluntarily agreed to pay for the cleanup.

“I wouldn’t be very concerned with it,” Gunn said of the site as it would be after the cleanup. “The action that’s going to take place there will leave it in a protective state.”

Under a draft proposal, a covenant on the land would prevent houses from being built on the lagoon and landfill site, and the groundwater near there would be monitored for 30 years.

The Prairie Trail development is a great concept: a mix of residential, retail and public space in the center of town, easily navigated by foot or bicycle for those who choose not to drive.

However, community activists were raising concerns two years ago about the potential for schools, parks and houses to be placed on contaminated ground. I wish the Register had given the story prominent coverage at that time.

I hope they do a good job cleaning up this site, but frankly, I would hesitate to buy a home anywhere near that lagoon or landfill.

When I was in college nearly 20 years ago, I remember reading an article in the Des Moines Register about the rising rate of births by cesarian-sections in Iowa. At some rural hospitals, the rate was approaching 25 percent, and that was alarming to some doctors.

Now almost a third of all births in Iowa are by c-section, and in some counties that figure is above 40 percent.

During the past week, the Des Moines Register, Cedar Rapids Gazette and several other newspapers  published this piece from the Associated Press about the rising rate of cesarean births, which quotes several women in Linn County and Johnson County.

Unfortunately, the article does a poor job of assessing the causes of the this trend and ignores the most significant problems associated with unnecessary c-sections. I explain why after the jump.

Iowa was one of 38 states to get an “F” on its open records law, according to this front-page article in Thursday’s Des Moines Register.

“The question posed was: Do states have a good apparatus built to … make it easier to further a complaint short of litigating?” said Charles Davis, executive director of the National Freedom of Information Coalition at the University of Missouri School of Journalism. The group helped sponsor the study, which was conducted by the Better Government Association last year.

Sponsors of the study stressed the research attempted to measure how easy it was for citizens to obtain access to records, not the strength of state open records laws themselves.

There are a lot of interesting details in the article, so if freedom of information is a big issue for you, click the link.

The Register’s editorial board writes a lot about open-records law, and I give them credit for that. Unfortunately, under Gannett’s ownership, the Register hasn’t devoted nearly enough resources to solid investigative reporting.

I wish the editors were assigning more reporters to dig into the information that’s already publicly available.

Cross-posted at Political Forecast.

Maybe I’ve missed something in my absences from blogging over the past few months, but has the Register ever really done a serious news or feature piece on Iowa’s bloggers and citizen journalists?  I mean, I know we threaten their credibility and their readership by getting scoops, insight, and news out faster sometimes–not to mention that our commentary is sometimes more consistent and better written than their columnists’–but it almost seems like there is an intent to ignore the contributions that bloggers in Iowa have had both before the caucuses and in previous elections or issues.  Today, in their features section, they profile one citizen journalist who has been vlogging for PurpleStates.tv (she had to audition to get the gig) and one guy who has been doing it for MTV.  Don’t get me wrong, their efforts are valuable…but what about the folks who do this on their own time and don’t necessarily live off of it?

The folks at Iowa Independent have been doing regular news and political reporting since May, and other bloggers on both sides of the aisle have been part of the debate and policy discussion in Iowa politics for a few years now.  Other papers across the state, as well as national papers and news magazines, have highlighted our growth and commented on our contributions.

Simply put, why can’t Iowa’s paper of record recognize or examine the Iowa online community for what it is and report back to the people of Iowa on it?  I don’t want the media attention, the scrutiny, the interviews, the publicity; I just think that some of us deserve the recognition for the contributions we make.  Two of my former colleagues at Iowa Independent have already talked a bit about this subject (see Chase Martyn’s initial post here and read Ben Weyl’s abbreviated response here) and I think it is one worth further discussion as we continue to build Iowa’s blogosphere.

CBS reporter Chip Reid is “embedded” with John Edwards’ campaign and posted this on the CBS blog:

I’m a bit unhappy with John Edwards. I’ve been covering his campaign for 10 days and he hasn’t made a lot of news. Let’s face it – a lot of what political reporters report on is mistakes. The campaign trail is one long minefield, covered with Iowa cow pies, and when they step in one – we leap.

I’ve done very little leaping – and I blame Edwards. While other candidates misspeak, over-speak, and double-speak, Edwards (at least in these 10 days) has made so few mistakes that I end up being transported — newsless — from town to town like a sack of Iowa corn .

He has a remarkable ability to stay on message. Not just in “the speech,” but even in Q and A. Nothing throws him off. He turns nearly every question into another opportunity to repeat his central theme. Global warming? We need to fight big oil. Health care? Fight the big drug and insurance companies. Iowa farmers’ problems? Blame those monster farm conglomerates. And the Iowa populists eat it up. We’ll see how well it works in other states.

He’s even disciplined in his daily routine. While most reporters use the campaign trail as an excuse to over-eat and abandon their exercise routines, Edwards squeezes in a run EVERY DAY, rain, sleet, or shine.

Come on John – relax. Step in an Iowa cow pie and let me do my job.

Like my grandmother used to say, many a truth is told in a joke. Reid is half-joking, but the truth is that journalists would much prefer to cover a gaffe than report on a non-eventful day on the stump.

Here’s an idea: how about coming up with story ideas on your own, rather than waiting for the candidates to slip up?

Reid could tell us what the crowds are like at the Edwards events he covers. How many people are showing up? What’s the average age? More women or men? Are the people at these rallies mostly committed Edwards supporters, or are there significant numbers of undecided voters?

Alternatively, he could spend some time analyzing an issue Edwards brings up in his stump speech. How does that issue relate to the lives of Iowans in town X where Edwards is speaking? How does Edwards’ approach to that issue compare to what other candidates propose?

On any given day, Daily Kos users post numerous substantive diaries about the various presidential candidates. Some are about candidates’ stand on important issues, and some are about campaign strategy.

While Reid complains that Edwards isn’t giving him anything to write about, the Edwards Evening News Roundups are packed with information every day.

If these citizen journalists can come up with something interesting to write about, why is a CBS reporter sitting around waiting for a candidate to make a mistake?

“Gotcha” journalism does not serve voters well. Reporters following the campaigns need to figure out a better way to do their jobs.

When the presidential candidates release plans to deal with important issues, such as education, global warming, or veterans’ affairs, the Des Moines Register more often than not buries the story in the middle pages of the Metro Iowa section.

That is especially true for the second-tier candidates.

Tuesday morning I picked up the Register and saw a photo of Chris Dodd and Joe Biden on the front page of the main section. Wow, that’s unusual. But what do you think the story was about?

Both Dodd, a senator from Connecticut, and Biden, a senator from Delaware, each are hoping to emerge and knock out a front-runner. But both facing an increasing amount of questions about whether they are different enough for voters to tell them apart.

Increasing amount of questions? From whom? I talk to Democratic caucus-goers literally every day, and while I have heard undecided voters praise Dodd and Biden many times, I have never heard anyone express concern that they may not be different enough for voters to tell them apart.

The Register goes on to tell us that Dodd and Biden get along well, charter planes together sometimes, and are “old school” senators. It mentions a recent Saturday Night Live sketch making fun of their similarities and quotes experts suggesting they are political insiders who lack “sex appeal.”

I expect meaningless process stories from most of the national press corps, but couldn’t the Des Moines Register at least pretend to cover the substance of the campaign on the front page?

Haven’t the Register reporters who cover the town-hall meetings and house parties all over this state noticed that caucus-goers want to hear where the candidates stand on the issues?

That is especially the case for the second-tier candidates, because most Iowans are less familiar with their records. Dodd and Biden have plenty to say about how they would govern and what their priorities would be–not that you’d get any idea about that from the article.

I noticed this quote near the bottom of the piece:

Kathy Elsner, a dentist in Des Moines who supports Dodd, said voters should look seriously at people running for president, and not just their campaign style.

Please, Des Moines Register editors, take Elsner’s advice and assign your reporters to compare and contrast the candidates’ proposals for dealing with the issues.

Richard Doak, a retired editor and columnist for the Des Moines Register, wrote an interesting piece on presidential endorsements in the Sunday paper. I encourage you to click the link and read it. He wrote the endorsement editorials for 20 years.

My only quibble is that I think Doak exaggerates the importance of the Register's endorsement of John Edwards four years ago. The Register published the endorsement eight days before the caucuses. I was working my precinct hard for John Kerry and started noticing a surge in support for Edwards more than a month before then. I distinctly remember calling my field organizer in mid-December to tell him that Edwards was gaining a lot of strength and would probably be viable. He said, “I know.” The field organizers were hearing the same thing from all of their captains.

The endorsement certainly gave Edwards good publicity, and probably convinced some leaners that he was a viable candidate, but it was by no means the spark that helped him finish a close second to Kerry. 

Doak describes the editorial board's endorsement process and notes that there are two endorsements he regrets: choosing Bill Bradley over Al Gore and George W. Bush over John McCain in 2000. I'm cutting the Register some slack on the first one, because I too made the mistake of supporting Bradley over Gore. I even sent him money.

But endorsing Bush over McCain? That was gutless. Doak admits that the editorial board almost endorsed McCain, but balked because they were charmed by Bush and anyway, McCain had written off Iowa.

The composition of the Register editorial board is different from four years ago. I wouldn't be too surprised to see them go with the establishment choice, Hillary Clinton, like they went for Bush as the establishment candidate in 2000.

Then again, maybe they will try to mix things up by picking a longshot, like they did in 2004. In that case my money would be on the Register backing Joe Biden, although Bill Richardson might also be a possibility.

What do you think? 

David Shuster, filling in for Tucker Carlson, humiliated Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) on MSNBC today. She knew all the GOP talking points against Moveon.org, but she didn't know the name of the last soldier from her own district to be killed in Iraq:

Kagro X at Daily Kos picks up the story from Crooks and Liars:

http://www.crooksand…

http://www.dailykos….

Here's part of the transcript: 

Shuster: “Let’s talk about the public trust. You represent, of course, a district in western Tennessee. What was the name of the last solider from your district who was killed in Iraq?”

Blackburn:”The name of the last soldier killed in Iraq uh – from my district I – I do not know his name -”

Shuster: “Ok, his name was Jeremy Bohannon, he was killed August the 9th, 2007. How come you didn’t know the name?”

Blackburn: “I – I, you know, I – I do not know why I did not know the name…” [Snip]

Shuster: “But you weren’t appreciative enough to know the name of this young man, he was 18 years old who was killed, and yet you can say chapter and verse about what’s going on with the New York Times and Move On.org.” [Snip]

Shuster: “But don’t you understand, the problems that a lot of people would have, that you’re so focused on an ad — when was the last time a New York Times ad ever killed somebody? I mean, here we have a war that took the life of an 18 year old kid, Jeremy Bohannon from your district, and you didn’t even know his name.”

Plenty more commentary in the thread below this diary:

http://www.dailykos….

Just got this from the Public Campaign Action Fund. If you haven't supported them in the past, please consider doing so. Public Campaign and its action fund do a lot of great work.

Dear [desmoinesdem],

 

Thanks to your fast action, Insight Communications, the cable company that last week refused to air our new ad about Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), has relented: they will air the ad this week.

We beat McConnell and his donors when we forced Insight Communications to back down. Now we need to take this opportunity to claim the right to run this ad on the air. We’re $14,500 short of our goal – if 145 people gave an average gift of $100 we’ll make it. If you can give more, great. Every dollar you contribute affirms the freedom of speech we fought for last week. Please make a donation to help us reach our goal today.

Help us keep this ad on the air. Consider making a donation today!

Insight, whose executives have donated thousands of dollars to McConnell and whose head lobbyist and CEO are both McConnell allies, tried to keep our ad, which talks about McConnell's ties to big money special interests, off the air.  We know censorship — and blatant political favor-trading  — when we see it and we immediately launched our petition effort to get Insight to air the ad.  On Friday evening we got the news: Insight backed down.

Now we need to make sure Kentuckians see this ad. Help us keep it on the air by making a donation today!

While we celebrate this victory for our ad, and for the light it will shed on McConnell's habit of acting on behalf of his campaign patrons instead of his constituents, we also celebrate a larger victory for our freedom of speech.

We have already seen our elections dominated by those with the most money who can buy the biggest megaphone, and as a result we have seen the priorities of our elected officials skew towards the narrow interests of the few and the wealthy.  But when you, and your fellow activists, signed the petition Friday and called for an end to Insight's censorious tactics to further control debate you took an important step in changing those priorities.

The ad will run in Kentucky through the week, as often as our funds will allow.  Thank you for all you've done.

David Donnelly
National Campaigns Director

P.P.S. The ad, and Insight's reaction got quite a bit of news coverage, read up here for more, and check out these YouTube clips of television coverage.

While this isn’t exactly Iowa-specific or Iowa-centered, I thought it was worth noting today’s MSNBC story on the left-leaning emphasis of journalistic contributions to federal campaigns and PACs.

Marc Ambinder decides to frame the issue as “all journalists are liberals” and says it doesn’t help fight the “liberal bias” title usually assigned to the MSM by the right-wing noise machine.

I’m more inclined to agree with Matt Yglesias:

“This effort at ginning up controversy by revealing political contributions made by employees of media organizations seems fundamentally misguided. For one thing, no effort is being made to see if the people named have any ability to impact coverage of national politics. They have, for example, a former copy editor here at The Atlantic on their list, but what nefarious influence is she supposed to have had on the magazine’s coverage?”

You can find the full list of journalists and their contributions here.  A large number of the folks listed are producers, copy editors, or other senior positions in journalistic enterprises.  Clearly, personal life issues and personal politics don’t inherently have to enter the work life and the job that one person is doing.  This goes for Republicans and Democrats.

Furthermore, this kind of ‘investigative’ reporting groups the kinds of journalists writing for Bloomberg in the same category as journalists writing for a magazine like The New Yorker.  Journalism isn’t just about writing down the facts of current events and reporting them to the people, there is real investigative work and commentary that can be done–with a clear intent.  Simply put, you can consider it analysis.  Writers for The New Yorker are pretty clear about stating their intent and opinions in their pieces, which make them fundamentally different then the reporting done in a Bloomberg news piece.

Clearly, there are conflicts of interest with some of the people mentioned the in report, but is it really something pervasive among the journalistic community in this country?  I guess that’s for the consumer and the reader to decide.

And if you’re curious for an Iowa-angle, the only journalist from Iowa making the list was Des Moines Register business reporter S.P. Dinnen, who gave $250 to John Kerry in 2004.  His explanation can be found here.

Last November, right before the midterm elections, CityView also did a big cover story on bias in the media, particularly in Iowa.  They covered all angles, including print, TV, and radio.  I recommend reading the full story here as it provides great insight into the efforts of the outlets to maintain their objectivity and it also provides a good list of just who in the Iowa media is registered with which party (if any).

Finally, there is a poll in the extended entry asking if you think there is bias in Iowa’s press.

I read the Des Moines Register's write-up on Tom Tancredo's visit to NW Iowa in the Sunday edition, and I think it's time for reporters covering Tancredo to go beyond reporting his outrageous claims and ask him to provide some evidence to back them up.

We've known for a long time that Tancredo is a one-trick pony, playing on the right wing's resentment against Spanish-speaking immigrants, fanned by the conservative hate radio machine. 

But I hadn't realized before reading this article that Tancredo actually blames immigrants for every problem plaguing America. Tancredo seems to think the main problem in our education system is the hordes of illegal immigrants whose children flood our schools. Nowhere in the article do I see a hint that a reporter asked him about what percentage of our school districts serve a significant population of illegal immigrants. 

Here's Tancredo talking about health care, channeling Moe Siszlyak of The Simpsons (“I knew it was the immigints! Even when it was the bears, I knew it was the immigints!”):

Tancredo touted his support for “market-place competition” in health care and personal health savings accounts, but added that “were we to deal with the illegal immigration problem, we could significantly reduce our costs for health care.”

Really? Illegal immigrants are a significant reason that the US is spending 14 percent of our GDP on health care? Again, I see no sign that a reporter has asked Tancredo or a Tancredo staffer to provide evidence backing up this claim.

Tancredo linked immigration to our environmental problems, since immigration is largely responsible for our population growth:

“If we continue on this path, there will be a billion people here by the end of the century,” Tancredo added. “And if there are, what do you think that does to our environment? Americans consume more and produce more waste than anybody else. If you're worried about the environment, why aren't you worried about the fact we are bringing in millions and millions of people?

Kind of interesting to see this conservative, anti-choice Republican so concerned about population growth and U.S. consumption. Did the Register's correspondent ask Tancredo whether he has ever sponsored legislation aimed at reducing the amount of waste produced by American consumers?

Also, his population numbers seem way off. What credible source has predicted that the U.S. population will hit 1 billion by the end of this century?

The last straw for me was this passage:

Tancredo touched briefly on what he said was the increased number of vaccine-resistant diseases being introduced into the United States from other countries, then forged ahead to what he said is illegal immigration's impact on national security.

This is loathsome propaganda designed to dehumanize immigrants among the Republican electorate. Maybe the reporter or the DM Register's editors think that “what he said was” is sufficient to suggest to the reader that Tancredo's claim might not be true. But this was crying out for a follow-up by the correspondent–what vaccine-resistant diseases is Tancredo talking about? Are there any?

Did the Register contact the Centers for Disease Control to verify this claim?

Come on, campaign trail reporters, be more than stenographers.

UPDATE: Don at Cyclone Conservatives attended Tancredo's Sioux City immigration forum on Saturday and loved what he heard from Tancredo and his Iowa campaign director, Bill Salier. 

It's Memorial Day weekend.  It is dreary and raining and I can't get out and work on the pond like I wanted to.  So, I'm catching up on my reading.

Over at Talking Points Memo, Josh Marshall recently published a letter from a reader that, I think sums up very well the feelings and opinions of the small number of Americans who either still support the war outright or support it in concept.  TPM reader JDG writes:

Yes, our war in Iraq is very much like the one in Viet Nam, but not the way its opponents mean the comparison. What's similar is this: Both of these war efforts by the United States have been sabotaged, probably on purpose, and we will probably lose this one as we lost Viet Nam, by the media's practice of showing us the daily body count in color on the nightly news every single day, again and again and again and again!

It is simply impossible for a democratic country to pursue any war, no matter how justified, to a successful conclusion under those conditions.

No matter what you think of the merits of the present war, it's obvious that two choices lie before America: either we go back to our pre-1950 policy (which most countries in the world still follow) of wartime censorship — not just of information that would help enemy commanders, but also of information that would undermine our own public's morale — or we may as well pack it in and invite China to rule our country, since we can never possibly win another war.

As I said, I think it is important to confront this idea head on.  It is, among a class of mostly male mostly conservative individuals a very popular and persuasive notion and it goes like this:  The media prevents us from winning because the American people cannot stand to see their boys and girls bleeding and dying on a daily basis.  It undercuts morale over the long haul and makes victory impossible by undermining the support for the war at home.

More after the jump.

My initial reaction to hearing about this blog was, “Ah, the inevitable, exploitative follow-up to the tragedy-of-the moment.  Some soldier trying to buy himself an easy ticket out or a good job afterwards.”

But that changes as soon as one reads along a bit.  This is the real, compelling and heart-wrenching, self-help of a soldier caught in bureaucratic purgatory.

If you oppose the war, if you support the war, you must read Walter Reed.