Hillary Clinton held a event this afternoon in a coffeeshop in Newton. It was a small event, maybe 80 people were there. Christine Vilsack spoke briefly and introduced the senator, stating that she supports Clinton because her extensive experience will allow her to get results in Washington.
Clinton herself spoke for a half hour. She called for universal health care and attacked insurance company bureacracies for making it hard for ordinary Iowans to receive inexpensive medical treatment. Also, she spoke in favor of college education being more accessible and inexpensive for everyone. There was a lot of applause for that. However, when she voiced her support for a women’s right to choose, there was a mixed response from the crowd.
She spoke out against the corruption by lobbyists and large corporations in Washington, asking for a return to honesty in the political arena. The crowd seemed to find this message quite appealing.
She gave the most attention to the subject of Iraq, when she stated that the U.S. had helped Iraqis and given Iraqis the chance to form a stable government in their country, but that it was time to take the troops out and let the Iraqis form a stable government for themselves. She did not outline a plan for withdrawal. However, when she next brought up Iran, she spoke out against the lack of diplomatic talks with Iran by the U.S. and asked for “diplomatic solutions” to the nuclear issue.
At the end, Clinton graciously thanked the crowd and asked for support. She took only a few questions. One man asked how much Senators earn a month. She fielded it fluidly, giving her guess in the six-figure range and taking it as an opportunity to claim that she had not voted for any pay increases in Congress. The next question came from a woman from Progress Industries, asking for Clinton’s support for people with disabilities in the workplace. She championed Tom Harkin as the leader of rights for people with disabilities in Congress, but did not go into much detail about her own position. The last question was hard to near and not repeated, but her response was to speak against the Bush administration for bypassing the UN before the invasion of Iraq.
She ended the event by mingling with the crowd and answering a few questions individually.
Legislation to bring full public financing of elections to legislative and statewide races is moving forward in Iowa, please pass this on to any bloggers you think may be interested: Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement (CCI) is hosting a blogger meetup tomorrow, Thursday April 11, at 5:30 p.m. CDT at Ritual Cafe at 1301 Locust Street, near 13th St. between Grand & Locust in Des Moines. They will be talking about the Voter Owned Iowa Clean Elections (VOICE) Act that would bring full public financing of statewide and legislative elections to the state.
Iowa bloggers interested in learning more about the VOICE Act, Iowa CCI, and their work are encouraged to attend. If you have any questions or are unable to attend and would like more information, please contact Adam Smith at asmith@publicampaign.org.
To learn more about the VOICE Act, please visit http://www.voterownediowa.org/.
Angela Davis is our commencement speaker this year at Grinnell College, and nobody I know here is 100% pleased. The presidential candidates we invited all turned up their noses at us (perhaps expectations at commencement are too high, and some folks are bound to leave at least a little underwhelmed), and I guess Angela Davis was somewhere on the list.
Of course, I know that Grinnell College is one of the most liberal in the United States. That goes without saying.
The pricey and very exclusive college has long been a bastion for those with communistic tendencies, but rarely have they been so bold about it as they are now.
Recently, I received a press release from the college, seeking publicity over its commencement keynote speaker. Of course, this is probably not the kind of press coverage they wanted, but any coverage is good coverage, right?
Angela Davis will be speaking. The name may not mean much to you. It didn’t mean much to me until I continued to read the first paragraph of the press release.
“She was associated with the Black Panther Party in the 1960s and 1970s, as well as the Communist Party of the United States of America,” the press release stated. “Still an activist, she now works for … prison abolition.”
Let’s take these one by one, shall we?
And then he takes them “one by one.” He hates the Black Panthers for being anti-capitalism and anti-authority. He hates the Communist Party because its goal was supposedly to devastate our country, Soviet style. And he hates the prison abolition movement because he doesn’t quite understand it.
But believing in academic freedom isn’t just for communists. Pretty much all of our Founding Fathers believed in it. Sure, it takes a certain level of self-awareness and maturity to know how to listen to what others say, consider it carefully, and decide not to agree with it, but doing that on a regular basis is a worthwhile endeavor. It’s how we learn in college, and hosting an important thinker like Angela Davis makes sense in that context.
In an article for the New Republic online, Jonathan Cohn points out that one possible unintended consequence of the frontloaded primary system is that it increases the likelihood of a protracted primary and would elevate the importance of late primaries like those in Oregon and West Virginia. While almost every four years, political pundits salivate at that thought of a fierce primary that would last months or even a floor fight at the convention to determine the nomination, Cohn hints at a more disturbing historic truth in his article: the primaries that he mentions as the late primaries, Oregon, West Virginia and Indiana were once the early primaries. West Virginia was where John Kennedy effectively clinched the nomination in 1960 and Indiana and Oregon were decisive battlegrounds in the 1968 primary contest between Hubert Humphrey, Robert Kennedy and Eugene McCarthy. (The first time a Kennedy ever lost an election was when Bobby Kennedy finished second to Eugene McCarthy in Oregon.) The drift of the primary schedule has turned what were once early primaries into laggards.
We’ve expressed our concern about the frontloading of the primary process before. But this drift towards earlier primaries has the potential to end the Iowa Caucuses as we know them. The “Super-Duper Tuesday” on February 5th and Florida’s move to hold its primary on January 29 may force the Iowa Caucuses to be held, at latest, on January 7. If this trend continues, it wouldn’t be a surprise if the caucuses are held in 2007 in order to preserve their primacy. If that happens, then the Caucuses are finished. Holding a Presidential Primary or Caucus in 2007 would be so absurd that it would make wholesale reform of the Presidential nominating process inevitable. If there is top to bottom reform of the process, Iowa will not be first in the nation anymore. The interests opposed to Iowa are dramatically stronger than those that support Iowa and once the caucuses lose the advantage of stasis and institutional conservativism, the Iowa Caucuses will be not be first in the nation before. The timeline for selecting a Presidential nominee has drifted earlier and earlier every election. But this drift cannot go on indefinitely and it seems increasingly likely that it will be ended after 2008 as the possibility for root and branch reform grows greater as another Presidential primary moves up in the calendar. And it seems more likely that one of the prime candidates for root and branch reform will be the Iowa Caucuses.
The timeline for selecting a Presidential nominee has drifted earlier and earlier every election. But this drift cannot go on indefinitely, and it seems increasingly likely that it will be ended after 2008, as the possibility for root and branch reform grows greater, and as another Presidential primary moves up in the calendar. And it seems more likely that one of the prime candidates for root and branch reform will be the Iowa Caucuses.
Frankly, none of us here at IowaProgress have any reason to believe that this rumor is true, but we wanted to report that, after Edwards cancelled an appearance in Indianola, Iowa on Tuesday night to fly home to North Carolina, rumors in campaign circles that Edwards may be dropping out began to make the rounds (we first heard rumblings yesterday morning). We want to stress that this is a wholly unverified rumor, but enough people have been repeating it that it seemed worthwhile to report that it’s out there among Iowa politicos.
The story from the Edwards campaign is that the Senator flew home to support his wife at a medical checkup appointment. This diary from Edwards’s online community reflects what Edwards’s supporters are thinking, and we will echo the good wishes written there. We sincerely hope that Elizabeth Edwards’s health is OK and that this rumor and the Senator’s unexpected event cancellation will turn out to be much ado about nothing.
That said, the Edwards campaign’s Events Page has only two upcoming events scheduled, both of which will take place in the next 10 days. Moreover, it is not clear that either of the two events listed will require the Senator’s attendance (one is a nation-wide day of house parties, and the other is a concert featuring a member of Dave Matthews Band other than Dave Matthews).
John and Elizabeth Edwards have scheduled a press conference in Chapel Hill at noon today, and it’s being characterized as “something major.” We hope it isn’t bad news.
I just want to stress that the decision to post a story about this unverified rumor was not made lightly. After hearing about it early Wednesday, we spent a full day deliberating before posting. Reporting on rumors has a tendency to perpetuate stories that are false and potentially damaging, and we didn’t want to do that. But the rumor is significant enough that we felt that the very fact that it was circulating, regardless of its truth or falsity, was worth reporting.
Today John Edwards announced that his presidential campaign will aim to be carbon neutral. As the email the campaign sent out explains, “In February, Governor Tom Vilsack announced he would be the first presidential candidate to plan a carbon neutral campaign. Edwards shares his commitment to protecting our environment and reducing our carbon footprint.”
Edwards is angling to fill the “Vilsack Vacuum,” only weeks after Vilsack announced he would drop out of the campaign. He is trying to recruit as many former Vilsack supporters as possible at this point, and this was one of the Vilsack campaign’s more novel ideas — although the Vilsack folks seemed to want to use it more for fund raising than anything else.
Exactly one week ago, the Edwards campaign sent out another press release claiming “more than 100 Iowa Democrats who were formerly supporting Governor Tom Vilsack’s presidential bid are now supporting Senator John Edwards for President” (it provides the list of 100 names to prove it). 100 activists isn’t exactly a lot considering Vilsack released the names of over 1,100 of his supporters a while back, but Edwards’s list does contain a few big names.
At this point, although other candidates have certainly paid lip service to Vilsack’s service as our governor, etc., Edwards is the only candidate making explicit attempts at recruiting former Vilsack supporters — at least through the press. Whether this will make much of a difference, I don’t know; but frankly I’m surprised that we haven’t seen more attempts at the same sort of thing from other candidates. Maybe outside Iowa few appreciate the level of support Vilsack had here. He has been our governor for a while, and even those Democrats who weren’t supporting his presidential campaign like him.
I know, I live in Iowa, so a defense of the caucuses that comes from me is just going to seem like I’m greedy. I should say that before I moved to Iowa for college four years ago, I shared the opinion that the importance of the caucuses is unjustifiable, and that a national primary would be more democratic. Then I experienced the caucuses (in 2004), and I changed my mind.
Over on MyDD, desmoinesdem published the second part of her diary series, “How the Iowa caucuses work.” She echoes concerns that we brought up here about inequalities in the caucus system based on delegate assignment, demonstrating that it takes more caucus-goers to elect a delegate in precincts with higher concentrations of activist Democrats who have free evenings than in precincts with lower concentrations of said activists. (E.g., it took about 70 caucus-goers to elect one delegate in the Poweshiek County, where I caucused in 2004, while in less-Democratic and less-populous Fremont County, it only took 22 caucus-goers to elect one delegate.)
The conclusion of all of this? The caucus system (according to our own Geraldine) “favors the old over the young, the rural over the urban, Western Iowa over Eastern Iowa.”
Why is this wrong? Well, while the caucus system seems to create inequalities on the surface, it can compensate for deeper inequalities. Many have complained, here and elsewhere, that the Iowa Caucuses are unfair to families with young children, workers who have evening shifts, handicapped persons, and, generally, people with busy schedules, because it requires them to take several hours out of a weekday night to argue with their neighbors about politics. Not everyone can do that, and it’s understandable.
That is why precincts are assigned delegates before caucus night: if a disproportionate number of Democrats in X precinct have to work the night shift or have young children (or even if there’s a blizzard), the system currently in place ensures that their precinct will still be important. And precincts are the smallest geographic unit our election officials recognize for general elections, so it is assumed that others in your precinct likely represent similar interests to yours. Think of it as a much more geographically specific version of the electoral college. (Maybe you have your problems with that system, too, but at least this caucus math has a constitutional precedent.)
Aside from that, though, here’s a question nobody has asked: what is the harm in giving Iowa’s downtrodden rural hamlets and agricultural areas a little attention from the rest of the country every four years? It isn’t like John Edwards is going to spend the last week before the caucuses camped out in Keokuk and Grundy Counties just because each caucus-goer is worth more there. At the end of the day, Keokuk and Grundy still represent a tiny fraction of the total delegates needed to win, and putting on events and doing GOTV work is easier and far more efficient in urban areas like Des Moines and Cedar Rapids.
While disparities in caucus-goer to delegate ratios from county to county may seem a little alarming, the truth is that urban areas are still immensely important, and that a candidate can win the caucuses without putting practically any resources into the less populous half of Iowa’s 99 counties. A campaign will hire more than 10 full-time field organizers for Polk County before they will hire a single full-time organizer for Grundy County. And most importantly, I don’t know a single Iowa Democrat who will argue that Polk County (Des Moines area) Democrats don’t have enough influence on state politics, the state party, or the caucuses.
I hope this will be the start of a series of posts written here as a defense of the Iowa Caucuses. Toward that end, I’m looking for more arguments to respond to. So, dear readers, please participate: What arguments against the Iowa Caucuses do you find most compelling?
I suppose the “hearts Huckabee” line is going to catch on soon and then become very, very uncool, so I’m sorry about that.
Today, though, Republican Presidential Candidate and Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee announced endorsements from Blue Bunny Bob Vanderplaats, best known for losing a statewide election a few months back, and Danny Carroll, former President Pro Tem of the Iowa House representing Grinnell. He lost last November, too.
But more importantly, recall the story we broke last October, detailing how Danny Carroll is implicated in a scandal that made its way to the Iowa Supreme Court and resulted in the suspension of a lawyer’s license to practice. Basically, he helped the lawyer steal over $40,000 (and a free trip to Vegas) from a struggling old lady in Grinnell.
Well, I guess we can always trust Danny Carroll to “stick to his principles,” eh? We can if you believe Mike Huckabee himself:
Danny Carroll earned great respect during 12 years in the General Assembly as a conservative leader who always held true and firm true to his principles yet worked so successfully with people from across the political spectrum to accomplish meaningful results in health care, tax policy, education and economic development. Iowa ’s social conservatives know that Danny Carroll has always been a clear, strong voice on the issues that matter most to them.
It sounds like, not only is Mike Huckabee talking out of the side of his mouth, but Crooked Danny Carroll might be positioning himself to run for something again. We will be watching him.
According to today’s Register, “Des Moines-area tourism officials have launched an effort to attract “A-list” rock stars, comedians and other Hollywood types for what they hope will be a nationally televised show to kick off the 2008 Iowa caucuses…No performers have been booked, but organizers say names like pop princess Britney Spears and patriotic country western star Lee Greenwood are on their early wish list.”
Unlike other commentators like David Yepsen, I think this is a great idea. (And not just because “Oops I Did It Again” is the story of John Kerry’s candidacy for 2008) The best way to draw attention to the Iowa Caucuses is having a second rate version of the Super Bowl halftime show. After all, if concerts can end famine in Africa, it might just get America hooked on the Iowa Caucuses. So hooked that everyone outside Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina, might realize that they don’t have any say who the Presidential nominees are. In the meantime, I look forward to hearing Wu Tang perform an Iowa caucus version of one of their hits, come on everyone, check out my Mike Gravel Pit.
It’s no secret that few people understand exactly how the Iowa Caucuses work, and many don’t think they should exist. So the Iowa Department of Cultural Affairs is going to make a museum exhibit for the State Historical Museum in Des Moines. From the Register:
The purpose of the display is threefold, said Anita Walker, director of the Iowa Department of Cultural Affairs:
- To secure Iowa’s first-in-the-nation caucus status by helping the nation understand why Iowa is a good first stop on the road to the White House.
- To provide a more well-rounded picture of Iowa to the world. The caucuses attract news media from 50 foreign countries and virtually every major media outlet in America.
- To encourage participation in the caucus process.
“I use the word ‘exhibit’ with quotes around it,” Walker said. “The real underlying, powerful message of this is citizen democracy, people’s participation in government. We want to get people excited about attending their own caucus.”
The ‘exhibit’ is going to open around Labor Day of 2007, and it’s going to have a real coffee shop (with a jukebox that plays politician sound-bites), a real living room (because there are still a few precincts where the caucuses are held in homes), and some kind of technology room where visitors can blog about stuff! I can’t wait to see all the great blogging that could result from this…
