Did anyone go to the Iowa Democratic Party’s state convention today?

Use this as an open thread to talk about what happened there.

UPDATE: John Deeth liveblogged the convention for Iowa Independent.

Chet Culver donated $100,000 from his campaign committee to the “coordinated campaign” that will get out the vote for all Democrats in Iowa this November.

The organized labor community is still mad at Culver for vetoing the collective bargaining bill this spring, as this curtain-raiser by the AP’s Mike Glover confirms.

The solution is to elect more Democrats to both chambers of the legislature, which the coordinated campaign will help do. With solid Democratic majorities, another collective bargaining bill can be passed in 2009, with a more open legislative process than what occurred this year.

The leaders of the Sierra Club and United Steelworkers appeared in Cleveland on Friday with Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown to endorse Barack Obama for president.

The joint endorsement and accompanying press release emphasized Obama’s support for “a clean energy economy,” which would create jobs while protecting the environment.

It’s a welcome contrast to John McCain’s energy policy, which calls for investing $2 billion in so-called “clean coal” and constructing 45 new nuclear reactors by 2030.

The Sierra Club and United Steelworkers created the Blue Green Alliance in June 2006. The alliance has sought to draw attention to “economic opportunities that could come from a serious investment in renewable energy.”

This work is very important for the progressive movement. Too often the labor and environmental communities have found themselves on opposite sides of controversial issues. We saw that in Iowa earlier this year, when key labor groups backed plans to build a new coal-fired power plant near Marshalltown.

The full text of the Sierra Club’s press release on the Obama endorsement is after the jump. In addition to Obama’s energy policy, Sierra Club drew attention to:

-his opposition to further oil drilling in the Arctic Naitonal Wildlife Refuge;

-his opposition to storing nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain in Nevada;

-his promise to undo many of George Bush’s bad executive orders on the environment;

-his support for more regulation of confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs); and

-his efforts to reduce children’s exposure to lead.

Jason Hancock has a story up at Iowa Independent about labor unions working hard to increase the Democratic majorities in the Iowa legislature.

It’s clear that members of the labor community are still furious that Governor Chet Culver vetoed a collective-bargaining bill passed toward the end of this year’s session:

Ken Sager, president of the Iowa Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO, said the 2008 legislative session ended on a sour note, but he hopes that be used as motivation in the future.

“A lot of our members are very disappointed and angry that we were finally able to get a [collective bargaining] bill through the legislature and we couldn’t get the governor’s signature,” he said. “We were very surprised, and we’ve heard from a number of legislative leaders who were just as stunned as we were. Now, we’re trying to focus that anger in a productive way to help build the labor movement for the future.”

In the federation’s most recent newsletter, the veto was put in much starker terms.

“The 2008 Legislative Session will go down in Iowa labor history as the session when a Democratic governor turned his back on the unions that enthusiastically supported him and helped get him elected,” the newsletter said. “When Gov. Culver vetoed the public sector collective bargaining bill, not only public workers, but all of labor was stunned by what they felt was an out-and-out betrayal.”

Cityview weekly’s “Civic Skinny” column recently commented on the strained relationship:

It wasn’t on his schedule, but [Culver] showed up the other day at the dedication of the Iowa Workers Monument. Skinny wasn’t sure what that means – so she turned to the Senior Analyst for Civic Skinny, who had a ready explanation. “This was organized labor’s effort to recognize Iowa’s workers that started way back in 2004. With the collective bargaining veto, it would have added insult to injury to have skipped the event, but he didn’t put it on his public schedule or send out a press release to promote the dedication of the monument – which is located on state property,” the Senior Analyst analyzed. Then, morphing into a Senior Cynic, he added: “Maybe this was the advice he got from the same pollsters that advised him to veto the collective bargaining bill.” “Way back in 2004” is code for “during the Vilsack administration,” and several Vilsack people – including the former governor himself – are on the Monument committee, which might be another reason Culver didn’t play up the dedication.

I wish labor unions every success in helping elect more Democratic legislators who are strong on their issues.

If Culver had asked for my advice, I would have encouraged him to sign the collective-bargaining bill. I wasn’t persuaded by the arguments that corporate and Republican interest groups made against it.

That said, the Democrats in the legislature badly bungled the passage of the bill, in my opinion.

Let’s take a step back.

In 2007 the slim Democratic majority in the House was unable to hold together to pass the “fair share” bill that would have weakened Iowa’s right-to-work law. This was one of the hot-button issues from the earliest days of the session, and it was a blow to the leadership’s credibility not to get it through.

Statehouse leaders tried a different tactic with the collective-bargaining bill this year. Instead of making clear early in the session that it would be one of their priorities, they let it be added as a 14-page amendment to a different bill, after the first funnel deadline had passed.

In theory, bills need to be approved by a legislative committee before that funnel deadline in order to be voted on during the legislative session. There are exceptions (the leadership can introduce new bills after the funnel), but in general, major initiatives are not supposed to be introduced after the funnel date.

Then, Democrats tried to limit debate over the collective bargaining proposal, prompting Senate Republicans to take unusual steps to force debate on it.

As I said above, I support the substance of the bill. I understand why it would be advantageous for the leadership not to tip their hand early in the session about the collective bargaining bill. Doing so would have given opponents more time to mobilize against it and lean on the less reliable members of the Democratic caucus.

But look at this situation from Culver’s perspective. The Democrats in the legislature looked like they were afraid to debate the collective bargaining measure in broad daylight. That’s what is implied when you introduce a major policy initiative as a long amendment and limit debate before forcing it through on a party-line vote.

I have no idea whether Culver vetoed the bill over substantive disagreements or solely because of political considerations, but I understand his reluctance to get behind a controversial bill approved in this manner.

Let’s elect more good Democrats to the legislature. They should be able to pass a strong collective bargaining bill next year without giving the appearance of trying to slip it in under the radar.

Then Culver should sign it without hesitation.

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?

I got an e-mail from Congressman Leonard Boswell’s campaign today touting another union endorsement:

                                                                                                              CONTACT: Betsy Shelton  

May 6, 2008                                                                                                                                                                                                                               515-238-3356

Iowa Steelworkers Endorse Congressman Boswell

Des Moines, IA – The United Steelworkers (USW) Iowa District 11 announced their endorsement of Congressman Leonard Boswell today.  “I am honored to receive the support of the United Steelworkers in Iowa,” said Congressman Boswell.  “I will continue my fight to improve the lives of working families across the state of Iowa.”

“Congressman Boswell has long been a friend of the United Steelworkers in Iowa.  With his seniority, it is important to have continuity and leadership representing Iowans,” said Randy Boulton, sub-director of USW District 11.  “The working families of USW wholeheartedly endorse Congressman Boswell.”

The United Steelworkers Iowa District 11 represents 8,000 members across the state of Iowa.

It’s not clear how many steelworkers in Iowa live in the third district.

I have to laugh every time the Boswell campaign brags about his seniority. As I wrote earlier this year,

Several campaign communications from Boswell have touted his ranking by Knowlegis as the 135th most powerful member of the U.S. House. They point out that this makes Boswell “more powerful than nearly 70 percent” of the members of Congress.

To put this in perspective, I looked up the whole class of 1996 as ranked by Knowlegis. Of the 47 House representatives first elected in that year who still serve, 31 were Democrats. Boswell ranks exactly in the middle of that group; 15 House Democrats first elected in 1996 are more powerful than he is, according to Knowlegis, and 15 are less powerful.

Digging further into the Knowlegis rankings, I found that 15 House Democrats first elected in 1998 are more powerful than Boswell, seven House Democrats first elected in 2000 are more powerful than Boswell, eight House Democrats first elected in 2002 are more powerful than Boswell (including Rahm Emanuel and Chris Van Hollen), eight House Democrats first elected in 2004 are more powerful than Boswell, and three House Democrats first elected in 2006 are more powerful than Boswell.

I don’t mean to discount Boswell’s efforts on behalf of his constituents. But let’s not kid ourselves–it’s not as if Fallon is challenging the Ways and Means Committee chairman, whose level of influence in Congress could not be matched for many years.

Moreover, continuity in terms of Boswell’s voting habits is exactly what I don’t want from my representative. His “progressive score,” as calculated by Progressive Punch, leaves a lot to be desired.

I received this press release from the Boswell campaign about another union endorsement:

April 12, 2008

Iowa Federation of Labor Endorses Congressman Leonard Boswell

Des Moines, IA – The Iowa Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO announced their endorsement of Congressman Leonard Boswell today.  “I am very pleased and happy to receive the support of the Iowa Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO,” said Congressman Boswell.  “They fight for better pay, better benefits, and better job security.  I will continue to stand up for workers and their families in any way I can.”

“Congressman Boswell had a 96 percent voting record in 2007, and has a lifetime voting record of 85 percent,” said Ken Sagar, President of Iowa Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO. “We look forward to working with the Congressman on labor issues in the future.”

The Iowa Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO is made up of more than 400 local unions and 50 councils representing over 55,000 members.

It will be interesting to see whether any unions advertise on Boswell’s behalf this spring.

I would think the main benefit of these endorsements would be additional phone-bankers and foot-soldiers to GOTV for a June primary.

Leonard Boswell continues to line up union endorsements in his re-election campaign against Ed Fallon. This came today from the Boswell press office:

Des Moines Firefighters Endorse Congressman Leonard Boswell

Des Moines, IA – The Des Moines Association of Professional Firefighters (IAFF 4) announced their endorsement of Congressman Leonard Boswell today.  They cited Boswell’s support of the FIRE Act grant program, which has provided funding to local, county and state agencies to provide fire and rescue protection for Iowans.  Boswell has also supported the SAFER Act program, which helps local fire departments recruit and hire both full-time and volunteer firefighters.  The Windsor Heights fire department has recently benefitted from this program.

“I’m grateful for the support of career firefighters in Des Moines and Urbandale,” said Congressman Boswell.  “I am committed to providing all I can to ensure our first responders are appropriately equipped to respond to any type of emergency, including terrorism.  Our firefighters are the first to arrive on the scene of these emergencies and I will continue to work toward enabling them to do the job.”

“We count on Congressman Boswell as a knowledgeable and skilled leader.  He continues to provide analysis of vital intelligence information that keeps America prepared to respond to emergencies and threats.  Firefighters rely upon and deeply trust Leonard Boswell,” said John TeKippe, President of IAFF 4.

IAFF, Local 4 represents approximately 300 firefighters in Des Moines and Urbandale.

The Boswell campaign put out this press release today:

CONTACT: Betsy Shelton

                                                                                            515-238-3356

Congressman Leonard Boswell Receives Endorsement of Building Trades Council

Des Moines, IA – Congressman Leonard Boswell received the endorsement of the Iowa State Building and Construction Trades Council today.  Congressman Boswell continues to fight for issues important to the Building Trades, including building and maintaining infrastructure, and focusing on issues relating to working families.

“I am honored to receive the support of the Building Trades,” said Boswell.  “These hard working men and women share my commitment to protecting working families.”

“As a member of the United States Congress, Leonard Boswell has consistently fought for issues important to the working families of Iowa.  The Iowa State Building and Construction Trades Council is proud to endorse Congressman Boswell because we know his re-election will send a strong advocate for working Iowans back to Washington,” said Bill Gerhard, State Building Trades president.

The Iowa State Building and Construction Trades Council has approximately 35,000 members in Iowa.  The Council represents 15 building trades unions engaged in the construction industry.

It’s not clear from the release how many of those 35,000 members live in the third district.

This endorsement isn’t surprising, in that unions typically back incumbents, and Boswell has gotten all of the trade union endorsements so far in this race.

Additionally, though Fallon was a strong and consistent supporter of organized labor in the Iowa legislature, he has been outspoken against certain new road projects in the state. The Building Trades Council presumably supports all new road projects.

To cite one example that applies to residents of the third district, supporters of a proposed four-lane beltway in northeast Polk County are counting on Boswell, who serves on the House Transportation Committee, to secure substantial federal funding. Fallon opposes building this road, which would be a poor use of transportation funding and would be environmentally harmful as well.

I have seen research showing that maintaining existing infrastructure supports more jobs than building new roads, but I can’t find the link right now. If I can find it tonight, I will add it to this post.

Lots going on in the state legislature this week, so here are some quick hits:

The ban on smoking in public places has gone to a conference committee after the House approved a version that would fail to protect many bar and restaurant employees. The version passed by the Senate bans smoking in all bars and restaurants, along with most other public places. Senator Staci Appel chairs the conference committee.

On a party-line vote of 52-47, the House approved a measure backed by unions that

greatly expands the issues that unions can negotiate. Under the proposal, unions could negotiate such issues as insurance carriers, class sizes and overtime compensation.

Advocates say the proposal would better protect public employees. Opponents said it would strip power away from locally elected officials, placing more decision-making power in the hands of unions.

Republicans say that bill would lead to tax increases, and brought Senate business to a halt on Thursday in an effort to block debate on the proposal.

Watch for some fireworks in the Senate over this issue, starting next Monday:

But about 24 hours after Republican senators first holed up in a back room Thursday morning, refusing to debate the labor-backed bill, lawmakers agreed to end the stand-off today.

Democrats agreed to wait until Monday to debate the controversial bill, and Republicans agreed to limit debate to no longer than six hours.

[…]

The stalemate idled and irritated Democratic lawmakers, who were eager to go home to their families for the Easter holidays. At least two Democratic lawmakers stayed awake at their desks the entire night, while most left to get some sleep.

This morning, the Republican leader, Ron Wieck of Sioux City, offered what his staff called “an olive branch.”

“We will allow the bill to be read in, have a subcommittee and full committee hearing in an effort to move it to the Senate floor,” Wieck said in a statement. “This would then make the bill funnel proof and eligible for debate for the rest of the session.”

[…]

“Senate Republicans, however, refuse to allow a radical expansion of union power, at the expense of the taxpayer, move forward without more public comment,” the e-mailed statement says.

Meanwhile, attorneys are warning that the proposed worker-ID law which has not been approved yet “likely will face multiple constitutional challenges.”

The Interfaith Alliance Action Fund issued a statement last month detailing many problems with the worker-ID proposal.

Barack Obama is sitting pretty ten days before the Nevada caucuses, having snagged the endorsements of the Nevada chapter of the Service Employees International Union as well as the Culinary workers and their parent union, UNITE HERE. UNITE HERE is the first national union to endorse Obama.

In September, the national SEIU was very close to endorsing Edwards, but backed off and left the decision to state chapters. Since then, 11 state chapters of the SEIU have backed Edwards, and four or five have backed Obama.

We are seeing the consequences of Iowa failing to deliver for John Edwards. The Nevada unions were ready to jump in for him if he had won here. He also would have been helped in Nevada by the California SEIU, which has already endorsed him. But now that the Nevada SEIU is behind Obama, state chapters backing other candidates can’t send their members to campaign in Nevada.

Edwards was never likely to do well in New Hampshire, but he would have had a real shot at Nevada with union backing. Now he is forced to focus on South Carolina, where he is substantially behind Obama and Clinton in the polls.

If Obama does win the nomination and the presidency, I seriously doubt he will do much for labor unions. That would interfere with his posturing as the bipartisan president pushing a unity agenda.

But it isn’t the first time labor unions have picked the candidate they viewed as most likely to win, rather than the candidate most likely to become their champion. That’s the way the world works.

UPDATE: Over at MyDD, Jonathan Singer wonders if these endorsements post a danger to Obama by raising his expectations in Nevada, where he has trailed Clinton in the polls:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008…

SECOND UPDATE: Daily Kos user greenmountainboy was just in Nevada and has this to say:

The union workers and precinct captains are PISSED that their leaders pulled this crap of not supporting Edwards. They continue to run house parties for him and love the man. The power structure (Clinton and Obama) know that if Edwards gets any roots in ANY ONE of these states they are in for a real fight. If that happens watch how quickly Clinton and O’Baby join forces for “change”.