( – promoted by Clark)

In the year 2008, the following seats will be open, either in a special election or in the 2008 general election

Special elections: HD16, HD18, HD65, HD158

Open seats: HD03, HD07, HD20, HD22, HD43, HD44, HD61, HD63, HD67, HD71, HD73, HD81, HD82, HD85, HD86, HD88, HD91, HD92, HD95, HD108, HD120, HD121, HD127, HD136, HD144, HD149, HD156

Feel free to add more districts to the list.

Here’s a summary of the open seats

HD03 should be a challenging seat to hold. Most of the counties gave Talent returns in the low to medium 50s (and gave McCaskill percentages around 10% to 15% behind Talent). For some reason, the district also divides Worth County.

HD07 is based in three counties, including Carrolton and Chillicothe. McCaskill fared well in Caldwell County, but lost by 10 in Livingston and Carroll counties. Quinn has won reelection easily in the last few years. Perhaps this can be a competitive seat, at least once.

Candidates so far: Mike Lair (R-Chillicothe) and Harry Wyse (D-Chillicothe)

HD20 is based in pretty much all of Callaway County south of I-70, including Fulton. This district was held by Democrats in the pre-term limits ‘era’ until 2000. Danie Moore hasn’t had a serious challenge but Callaway seems reasonably winnable given the right tide.

Candidates so far: Jeanie Riddle (R-Fulton) and Don Salcedo (D-Fulton)

HD23 should be a hold for our side. Knock on wood. Russ Unger is a Democratic candidate for this seat.

HD43 and HD44 are both in KC and will be retained pretty easily.

HD61, HD63, HD67, and HD108 are all in St. Louis City. They’re presumably safe, barring complete disaster. Candidates with committees include Michael Colona (HD67), Joan Landmann (HD67), Robert Stelzer (HD67), Jacob Hummel (HD108), Tony Rezek (HD108)

HD71, HD73 and HD81 are Democratic seats in St. Louis County. HD82 could be competitive, depending on if the Republicans try hard to pick up Page’s seat (even with Nixon and Page running statewide)

Candidates include Donald Calloway Jr (HD71), Vernon Harlan (HD71), Roger Wilson [no, not that one] (HD71), Steve Brown (HD73), Gina Mitten (HD73), and Stacey Newman (HD73). [All Democrats]

HD85 will be opened by Lembke running for the Senate, and it should be competitive. HD86 is a Republican seat in Chesterfield. HD88 is in Ballwin. HD91 is in Webster Groves. HD92 is east of HD88. HD95 is close to Kirkwood. Fares had a close call in 2006. So that’s a positive sign. STL residents should know a lot more about these seats than me.

Candidates include Vicki Englund (D-HD85), Robin Harris (R-HD86), Andrew Koenig (R-HD88), Shamed Dogan (R-HD88), Chris Howard (R-HD88), Jeanne Kirkton (D-HD91), Randy Jotte (R-HD91), Susan Allen (R-HD92), Bob Tullock (R-HD92), Lee Presser (R-HD92), and Mike Leara (R-HD95).

HD120 is going to be an interesting seat, because it includes a portion of SD31 in Bates, Cass, and Southern Johnson County. That area might be more sympathetic to Democrats than usual if the campaign in SD31 goes well for us. Those parts of the district include Archie, Leeton, and Drexel. Henry County went for McCaskill and that’s a good sign for the overall hopes. Kristi Kenney is the only candidate with a committee.

HD121 is more than just Warrensburg. There’s also unincorporated parts of Johnson County, and Knob Noster. This district will be covered a lot more in the future. Don’t worry about it. Candidates i’ve heard about include Jeff Alvarado, Anthony “Art” Arton, and Jim Jackson for the Democrats.

HD127 includes Jasper County west of US71, but not including Joplin. That should tell you what is necessary about who will win here. Tom Flanigan (R) has a committee though

HD136 is in Greene County, but Marsh won by only 12%, so this might be competitive somehow. But, maybe that’s not in the cards. Eric Burlison (R) has a committee.

HD144 is in Wright and Douglas County. That should tell you what is necessary about who will win here.

HD149 is in the friendlier area of Rolla and Northeast Phelps county. So it could be close, if the wind blows the right way. But it won’t be a complete blowout. Wayne Bledsoe (D) and Dave Keller (R) have committees so far.

HD156 is probably going to have the same kind of result as HD149. Jetton won by 13 in 2006 and the district probably has some sympathetic areas. Michael Winder (D) is running again here.

As for the special elections

Republicans probably hold the 158th (unless their candidate totally blows it) and Democrats hold the 65th.

The real fun will be in the St. Charles County based 16th and 18th districts*. But having the HD16 special election (and possibly the HD18* special election) on the Presidential primary date should help the Republicans out. But then again, St. Charles is becoming bluer, so who knows what is possible.

[* – Of course, Blunt hasn’t decided on if he wants to let the 18th district go without representation for a year out of fear that it’ll be won by a Democrat. Seriously]

The special election matchups are..

HD16: Mark Parkinson (R) v. Tom Fann (D)
HD18: Matthew Seeds or Anne Zerr (R) v. Mindy Primm or Tim Swope (D)
HD65: Michelle Kratky (D) v. Somebody (R)
HD158: Mary Kasten (R) v. Mike Keefe (D) v. George Webster (LP)

HD158 might be open in November if Kasten wins and then declines to run for re-election. But it seems unlikely that she would run for an office, only to retire from it a month into her term.

But then again, if Charles Dake can win in Lawrence County, then everything is possible.

Two more notes

Republicans who won by less than 3% in 2006

Jim Guest (R-King City), Sally Faith (R-St. Charles), Vicki Schneider (R-O’Fallon), Ed Robb (R-Columbia), Jerry Nolte (R-Gladstone), Jeff Grisamore (R-Lee’s Summit), and Rick Stream (R-Kirkwood) [keeping in mind that Grisamore won an open seat and Stream defeated an incumbent]

And currently the state house has 89 Republicans and 70 Democrats. Back in November, it was 92-71. So it’ll take around 11 pickups to get the majority.

And yes, expect more open seats. Just because.

So, who else isn’t going to run in 2008? And who is going to run for these open seats?

And yes, all those opean seats in St. Louis is a very rich opportunity for gains.

     
Hi all.  TomP here with the Edwards Evening News Roundup.
John Edwards released his Education Plan this week.  We’ll talk a little about that tonight.  I also have two short John Edwards’ videos about education: one is a clip from his speech in Des Moines introducing the Plan and in the other he answers questions on preschool and college. 
I also have a story showing that John Edwards fares best in Missouri in the general election.  Unlike his opponents,

Edwards crushes the entire Republican field. He wins by 5 against Giuliani (47-42), by 10 against Thompson (50-40) and by 24 against Romney (56-32).

This and a lot more, around the fold.

1.  Education.
John Edwards’ Plan will radically overhaul No Child Left Behind, expand early education, support teachers and create a “School Success Fund” to help struggling schools.
Go Here for details on the Education Plan
Teacherken, a kossack with both a deep interest in and expertise about education said this about Edwards’ Plan in a highly recommended diary today.  His title say sit all:

A very good Education Plan from John Edwards
snip
At this point I am neutral in the presidential contest.
snip
I am a professional educator, and for me education is as important as any other issue with the possible exception of protecting the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  I am not, in writing this piece, endorsing a candidate.  But I can say without hesitation that I view this plan as a remarkable document, a very good start at laying out the guidelines for making serious and positive changes that will sustain and improve public education in this country.  I have never met the candidate, although I was fortunate enough to be able to speak about education with his closest adviser, his wife, whom I found well informed and willing to listen. 
snip
Again, I have my points of contention, but they are more than outweighed by the overall excellence of what Edwards has put forth.

 
A very good Education Plan from John Edwards
Here are two videos of John Edwards talking about education this week.
John Edwards talks about the importance of teachers and his plans for public education in America. Edwards introduced his education plan at a middle school in Des Moines, Iowa on September 21, 2007.

John Edwards answers a question about his plans for preschool and college at a community meeting in Guthrie Center, Iowa on September 21, 2007.

2.  John Edwards fares best in general Election in Missouri:

Edwards continues running way ahead of his Democratic rivals
Survey USA keeps coming out with general election polls pitching major Democrats versus major Republicans, and John Edwards keeps running way ahead of his Democratic rivals. First came news from Alabama and Kentucky. Then came Ohio.
Now, SUSA has released a poll from Missouri:
Clinton wins two out three. She loses the marquee matchup against Giuliani, 48% to 45%. That is the only matchup of the nine the Democrat loses. Obama wins against Giuliani 46% to 44%.
Clinton and Obama have exactly the same numbers against Thompson and Romney. They both win 48-45 against the former and 51-40 against the latter.
Edwards crushes the entire Republican field. He wins by 5 against Giuliani (47-42), by 10 against Thompson (50-40) and by 24 against Romney (56-32).

Campaign Diaries
Go here for Results of SurveyUSA Election Poll #12620

3.  What’s going on tomorrow:
Live Webcast Here:
The Presidential Candidate Forums

The Presidential Candidate Forums, organized by the Federation of American Hospitals and Families USA, feature candidates being interviewed by a panel of prominent journalists from ABC News, National Public Radio, the Wall Street Journal, and the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer. The forums, taking place at the Kaiser Family Foundation’s Barbara Jordan Conference Center, will be taped for broadcast by MacNeil-Lehrer productions and webcast by kaisernetwork, Kaiser’s health news and information service.

Up Next:
Monday, September 24, 2007 at 11 a.m. ET
Former Sen. John Edwards(D-N.C.)

4.  A Good article you may have missed.
I found an article tonight on John Edwards in the Christian Science Monitor from September 20:

John Edwards: working-class values and a closely held faith.
While Christian beliefs help gird his antipoverty campaign, he believes that politicians who identify closely with one religion cannot be inclusive.
By Ariel Sabar | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
snip
For Mr. Edwards, a Southern Baptist-turned-United Methodist, faith is deeply felt but intensely private, a refuge after family tragedy and a daily source of wisdom, but not a platform for politics.
“It’s a very dangerous business – that intersection” of religion and politics, Edwards said in an interview with the Monitor. “I don’t like to talk about my faith openly. I do in answer to questions, but I don’t usually bring it up myself.”
snip
“My belief in Christ plays an enormous role in the way I view the world,” Edwards, a former North Carolina senator, said at a presidential forum on faith in June. “But I think I also understand the distinction between [my faith and] my job as president of the United States, my responsibility to be respectful of and to embrace all faith beliefs in this country.
“One of the problems that we’ve gotten into,” he added, in an apparent allusion to President Bush, “is some identification of the president of the United States with a particular faith belief as opposed to showing great respect for all faith beliefs.”
snip
Edwards’s embrace of working-class America is matched by sometimes sharp attacks on the country’s elite. He has vowed to end Bush-era tax cuts for well-to-do Americans, refuses campaign money from lobbyists and political action committees, and has taken bare-knuckled stances against big business.
snip
“There is a huge class consciousness to John,” a friend, US bankruptcy Judge Rich Leonard of Raleigh, who didn’t return telephone calls from the Monitor, told a North Carolina newspaper a few years ago. “I think it plays out in so many of his political decisions. I think his primary, overriding political view is to put the starting point in the same place for everybody.”

It is a long and fair articel.  Well worth reading in its entirety:
working-class values and a closely held faith
5.  Diaries. 
Finally, a quick call out of diaries you may have missed today that are about John or Elizabeth Edwards in some way:
  a.  By Nyceve:Can we talk?
  b.  By Wade Norris: Elizabeth Edwards on Labor, Unionization, Big Business and the future Edwards Administration
  c.  By Mantix: Defending John Edwards
  d.  By Teacherken: A very good Education Plan from John Edwards
  e.  By JeramiahFP: Susan Estrich, Fox’s Pet Democrat, Attacks Elizabeth Edwards Again
That’s it, for a long EENR.  If I missed your Edwards diary, I’m sorry.  These are just a few I saw.

By it’s nature the Out Of Iraq Bloggers Caucus is, as our tagline describes,  a “coalition of the willing”, not a top down organization speaking with one voice, but a gathering place for bloggers united in opposition to the Iraq occupation, each with their own motivations, each with their own ideas on how the occupation can be ended.

I want to talk today about my own views, and also about a short conversation I had yesterday about whether and about how the Iraq occupation could be ended – but first I want to provide some background against which to express my own thoughts. I also hope here to encourage other OOIBC members to post their thoughts. I speak only for myself here.

OOIBC is subset of a much larger “coalition of the willing”, a microcosm of the tens of millions of people who, expressing, in the words of Keith Olbermann “the collective will of the nearly 70 percent of Americans who reject this War of Lies”, in the 2006 midterm elections repudiated the Republican party and I think George W. Bush’s foreign policies, and swept the Democratic Party into a Congressional majority on the strength of one single issue, one overwhelming mandate.

A mandate they have since, in my view, grievously insulted the people who gave them the Congressional power they now hold by ignoring.

Keith Olbermann described that mandate more clearly than anyone else, I think, in his May 23, 2007 “Special Comment” MSNBC broadcast:

The entire government has failed us on Iraq:

Few men or women elected in our history-whether executive or legislative, state or national-have been sent into office with a mandate more obvious, nor instructions more clear:

Get us out of Iraq.

Yet after six months of preparation and execution-half a year gathering the strands of public support; translating into action, the collective will of the nearly 70 percent of Americans who reject this War of Lies, the Democrats have managed only this:

• The Democratic leadership has surrendered to a president-if not the worst president, then easily the most selfish, in our history-who happily blackmails his own people, and uses his own military personnel as hostages to his asinine demand, that the Democrats “give the troops their money”;
• The Democratic leadership has agreed to finance the deaths of Americans in a war that has only reduced the security of Americans;
• The Democratic leadership has given Mr. Bush all that he wanted, with the only caveat being, not merely meaningless symbolism about benchmarks for the Iraqi government, but optional meaningless symbolism about benchmarks for the Iraqi government.
• The Democratic leadership has, in sum, claimed a compromise with the Administration, in which the only things truly compromised, are the trust of the voters, the ethics of the Democrats, and the lives of our brave, and doomed, friends, and family, in Iraq.

Now, a little more than three months later, nothing has changed and it appears that there is no movement by the Democratic controlled Congress toward ending the financing of “the deaths of Americans in a war that has only reduced the security of Americans”.

In some comments beginning here replying to a post by Big Tent Democrat at TalkLeft yesterday, Glenn Greenwald made it clear that he now feels there is no possibility of the Democratic leadership ending the occupation of Iraq in the near future, if ever.

I’m not advising Democrats to give up on Iraq.  I think they ought to force the President to withdraw.

But I’m not going to lie to my readers to make them feel better.  Everything I’ve seen from Democrats makes me conclude that nothing that anyone does will ever make them stand up to the President with sufficient unity and in sufficient numbers to force him to stop the war.

That’s just reality.  They can’t even restore habeas corpus or defy the President’s demand for vast new warrantless surveillance powers.  The idea that they are going one day soon wake up and Stop the War is fanciful, no matter how much you wish it were otherwise (and, contrary to your weird praise of Atrios, he has made that point more emphatically and more continuously than anyone I know).

I’m not writing prescriptively, but descriptively.  I’m not recommending that Democrats not try to stop the war.  I’m not recommending that anyone stop trying.  I’m just giving my honest assessment that they are not going to do it. 

I earnestly hope that Glenn is wrong on this, but I believe he is not, and I agree with him.

I also have come to believe that the Democratic Leadership has no motivation to end the Iraq occupation. I think that they believe they will retain and perhaps increase their control of Congress next year, and that Democratic presidential frontrunner candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton believe that they can count on winning the presidency without ending the Iraq occupation, almost if not fully on the strength of one message – that they are not Republicans.

I think they are counting on the fear of another four if not eight years of Republican government to provide the votes for them, without having to live up to their implied promises and the expectations of them that three quarters of voters hold. I think that they are not afraid they will pay any political price whatsoever in 2008 for not living up to those implied promises and the expectations.

But I think they are not simply afraid of nothing.

I think that they, like the Republicans, are afraid of one thing.

They are afraid that the US economy cannot and will not continue to dominate the world economy, and will collapse, unless the US is able to dominate the energy resources of the world, and that cannot be done if the US withdraws from Iraq.

The invasion and the occupation of Iraq was not done to deliver ‘freedom and democracy’ to Iraq. It was done in the hope of ensuring US economic dominance.

Larry Everest writing at ZNet shortly before the last Emergency Supplemental funding the occupation was passed in May (the first one passed by a Democratic controlled Congress after years of supplementals passed by Republicans) described the problem much more succinctly that I am able to:

What the Bush Regime portrays as a noble effort to make the world safe from terrorism and bring democracy to the Middle East is actually a vicious war of empire to deepen the U.S. stranglehold on the Middle East and Central Asia –a war that is part of a broader effort to create an unchallenged and unchallengeable imperialist empire.

This goal is not viewed as capricious or incidental by those in charge–whether Democrats or Republicans–rather it flows from the deepest needs and drives of their system: U.S. hegemony in the Middle East and global dominance is crucial for U.S. capitalism’s ongoing functioning and U.S. global power.
…
So when Bush says, “Even if you thought it was a mistake to go into Iraq, it would be a far greater mistake to pull out now,” he’s expressing a fear — from an imperialist viewpoint – that a U.S. pullout would leave the empire weaker. And he is saying this in opposition to other forces in the U.S. ruling class who, also coming from an imperialist viewpoint, now think it’s a big mistake for the U.S. not to withdraw.

This whole dynamic of riding the anti-war vote to power, then voting to fund an ongoing war while claiming to be ending it, reflect the conflicting necessities the Democrats face. As representatives of U.S. imperialism, they are committed to maintaining U.S. global dominance. Yet they fear the U.S. is sliding toward a strategic debacle of epic proportions and may already have lost the war in Iraq.

Glenn Greenwald yesterday was expressing his belief of the reality of the situation with “Everything I’ve seen from Democrats makes me conclude that nothing that anyone does will ever make them stand up to the President with sufficient unity and in sufficient numbers to force him to stop the war.”

I agree with Glenn. They will not end it. They have no reason or motivation to, if they can count on voter support in 2008 without ending it.

The evidence states that Democrats are basically on board with Bush.

This has been obvious for some time. Since the supplemental in the spring at least. The FISA Amendment should have been the clincher for anyone who doubted it.

They are not capitulating to Bush. They are complicit with Bush. They are confident that the electorate will capitulate to them next year out of fear of the republicans. They are playing people. This, in my view, is Democrats using the same fearmongering tactics the Republicans used so successfully for the past few years.

It’s very difficult to imagine a political reality developing under which current Democrats (again I refer to leadership and presidential frontrunners) will end the occupation of Iraq.

But it is not at all difficult to imagine how it can happen.

I believe that people would feel energized if they saw and heard enough people leading us in the right direction on Iraq, and that if leading Democrats heard enough people say to them that they will not vote for ANY Democrats next year EXCEPT Democrats who have been vocally, and by their votes on supplementals, calling for total withdrawal from Iraq they would quickly notice.

They are politicians after all, and they are concerned with winning elections.

They would notice if enough people turned the tables on them and used fear to motivate them, instead of voting simply out of fear of republicans.

If Democrats were filled with fear that they would lose Congress and the presidency UNLESS the occupation was ended before the 2008 elections, they would end the occupation of Iraq.

I hope that Glenn Greenwald will use the voice and the reach and the influence he has to encourage people to threaten the Democratic Leadership and presidential hopefuls with loss of support unless they do the job the voters who gave them the Congressional majority they now hold expect of them.

As Keith Olbermann also said in May:

Those who seek the Democratic nomination need to-for their own political futures and, with a thousand times more solemnity and importance, for the individual futures of our troops-denounce this betrayal, vote against it, and, if need be, unseat Majority Leader Reid and Speaker Pelosi if they continue down this path of guilty, fatal acquiescence to the tragically misguided will of a monomaniacal president.