I whole-heartedly support Claire McCaskill for re-election. I say this although, as regular readers of the blog may know, I’ve been disappointed with her careful adherence to that perceived sweet spot that the GOP’s careening lurch to the far right has allowed many to designate the new center of our political spectrum. She’s certainly had her good moments; on women’s and union issues, for instance, she’s been really fine. But, her failures and her virtues aside, I support her for  three reasons: Todd Akin, Sarah Steelman, and Jon Brunner, not to mention the absolute need to deny control of the Senate to the lock-step-marching GOP which is more than capable of neutralizing its own more moderate members.

However, if Greg Sargent is correct, McCaskill may want to put her sensitive finger to the wind once again – it might just be shifting direction, albeit slightly. Noting the defeat of two blue dog Democrats in yesterday’s primaries, he observes:

The question here is how these results, and any other moderate setbacks in other primaries this year, will be interpreted by Democratic politicians. Will they see it as just a couple of redistricting-inspired flukes? Or as a warning shot to Democratic elected officials who care more about avoiding the “liberal” label than they do about supporting policies that primary voters prefer?

Of course, Sargent also argues that liberal  Democratic primary victories will not provide the desired exemplar if progressives fail to engage in the inevitable “spin” war. But if we progressives do our part, the rewards could be big:

If liberals want to duplicate this from the left, and make these two wins matter beyond the district lines, their work is cut out for them. They need to win the spin, and they need to keep it going in other districts this year and in future election cycles. The stakes are certainly high enough.

Imagine a scenario in which Democrats again win unified control of government – and instead of having to deal with dozens of Members who are terrified of voting for the mainstream liberal agenda, there are dozens of Members who are terrified of opposing it. Compared with 1993 or even 2009, that would be whole ‘nother ballgame.

Note the emphasis on “future election cycles.” We’re not going to win this fight this year. I’m sure it’s not necessary to remind you that that conserdems like McCaskill should only be called to account in primaries – and only then when we’ve got a smart plan and a smart candidate – not in general elections when the alternatives are part of a putsch aimed at upsetting the New Deal and taking us back to the bad old days of  economic laissez faire policies and the social Darwinism  of the corrupt, gilded age when the rich got richer and the poor …. well, you know the rest.  

FiredUp! has done a great job of chronicling Lieutenant Governor Peter Kinder’s lawsuit against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). Just go to the FiredUp! Website and search “Peter Kinder suit” and you’ll get the whole ugly story. It seems obvious that the suit is a maneuver to spark some enthusiasm on the part of Missouri’s roiling Tea Party masses for a future run by Kinder for governor. If so, perhaps he should reconsider.

In the wake of last night’s primaries, Think Progress notes that:

Every single health care plaintiff in a contested primary for governor lost their election – hopefully this will inspire future candidates to abandon their counterproductive opposition to health reform.

Wanna bet Knder won’t get the message that opposing “Obamacare” isn’t the way to the governor’s mansion?  Poor baby’s in too deep for anything but denial.

{First, a cheap plug for my blog Senate Guru.}

40 days from today – on May 18 – we will see two HUGE primaries for U.S. Senate.  Even though these races aren’t in Missouri, they impact Democrats across the country and, well, the entire country as a whole.

In Pennsylvania, Democratic Congressman Joe Sestak will try to upset Republican-for-decades Arlen Specter.

In Arkansas, Democratic Lieutenant Governor Bill Halter will try to upset corporate lackey Blanche Lincoln.

Polling shows that both Specter and Lincoln are at risk of – if not likely to – hand these Senate seats over to far-right-wing Republicans. (And, even if these two retain the seats, that’s not much better on many key issues.)

Congressman Sestak and Lieutenant Governor Halter winning these primaries are critical to keeping these seats in truly Democratic hands. Your support can help make that happen!  Please hop over to the Expand the Map! ActBlue page right away to make a contribution – an investment in the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party to pull out an old expression – and show your support.

Thanks SO much for any support you can provide. 40 Days.

Of course, she really wants us to keep asking that question, doesn’t she. Apparently, some of Steelman’s allies didn’t like the sound of the Hill interview that RBH referenced and sounded off about it. And Steelman herself sought to correct the impression that she had backed off a run for the Senate.

From an interview with Dave Catanese regarding the Hill article:

“I don’t think Mr. Blake understood what I was trying to say,” Steelman wrote back.

“I said I didn’t want to be destructive and immediately he thought I was saying I didn’t want to be in a primary because he assumed like all the insiders do, that all primaries are destructive. The Republican establishment thinks primaries are destructive. I don’t believe primaries are destructive because they provide a healthy debate about ideas such as fiscal responsibility, ethanol mandates and government bailouts,” she went on.

“However, the Republican establishment wants to hold on to power at all costs and a primary would force the establishment to admit they made mistakes and take responsibility. Anyone who challenges those ideas threatens their power and they view it as destructive to the party. I want to be constructive and build a bigger and better party based on good ideas. I mentioned “other outsiders” who may want to run because I don’t presume to be the only one who can carry that message. However, I do believe that the messenger in order to be credible cannot be a part of the Washington establishment who lead us into the minority,” Steelman wrote, signing off with “Funny the way it is.”

I don’t agree with Steelman on much, but I’ll back her up 100% on this point. Primaries are there for a reason. They are not there so that the party rank-and-file get to rubber stamp the choices made by party leaders. They are there so that people can make choices as to which candidates are best to lead them. And as a practical matter, primaries prepare a candidate and his or her organization for the bigger fight in the general election, raise public awareness about the candidate, and help to prepare the nominee against possible attacks.

Now, I find it odd that Steelman seems to think the reason that Blunt and his fellow GOP leaders lost Congress because of insufficient commitment to true conservatism. But that’s really not the point, is it?

This is it, Missouri.  Super Tuesday is February 5.  That day we join 23 other states to cast our primary ballots or attend caucuses  to decide who will be the nominees for our respective parties for the presidency.

If you are not registered to vote, or you have moved since you last voted, you have until January 9th to get registered to participate in the primary.  You can register to vote at your county election board headquarters, or,  in Kansas City, you can register at any branch of the Kansas City Public Library.  In outlying areas, you should  call your county elections board, or check the Secretary of State’s website for information on registering to vote.    

This is the most important presidential election of our generation.  The next president has a huge mess to clean up, and we must choose wisely.  We start by choosing wisely in the primary.

In 2006, I remember opening up the Kansas City Star a few days before the midterm primary and seeing in the sidebar a sampling of “person on the street” interviews.  When asked if they were going to vote in the primary, all but one of the people interviewed dismissed the primary as “unimportant.”  They were all too busy, the primaries don’t matter, blah, blah, blah.

I read that, and had to be sedated.

The fact that four of five people couldn’t be bothered to vote in the primary set me off.  I believe saying at the time that they all needed to be “bitch-slapped” or something along those lines.  It’s fuzzy now, that’s about the time the tranquilizer dart kicked in.  My husband is a smart man – he keeps a supply on hand during election season and presidential administrations headed up by Republicans named “Bush.”

Now, let me give a bit of background.  I grew up in a family that preached the gospel of the electoral process, and intoned the mantra of the importance of the local election.   Not very many people spent their tenth summer  campaigning for Jerry Litton and Kit Bond (on alternate evenings) in  1972  – my yellow-dog Democrat Grandmother and belt-and-suspenders Republican Grandfather had a mixed marriage, and a passel of grandkids that got shipped to them them every summer, where we learned to put up hay early in the morning; and then learned the nuts and bolts of localized, retail politics in the evening.  

I grew  up in that politically charged environment,  and it took.  It took so well that I am a missionary for the cause, intent on spreading that word, until I am convinced that somebody besides me  gets it!

That is why I was so ecstatic to see the turnout in Iowa on Thursday night.   Maybe my Grandma’s message of “Primary Importance” is  catching on?   I’m going to go ahead and optimistically hope so, and try to make the case that the primary is the most important election, not the least, as those misguided souls interviewed by the Star seemed to believe.

Before anyone gets to face us in the general, they have to walk neighborhoods and attend rallies and ice-cream socials and box suppers and let their potential constituents get to know them, at least those of us who live in “important” states – meaning swing states  like Missouri  and states that vote on or before Super Tuesday, which pretty much decides the whole shooting match, especially now that New York and California have joined the Super Tuesday festivities.

If we are lucky, something like 20 percent of registered voters will come out to vote in the primary on February 5  to select our respective parties presidential candidates.

It makes me absolutely livid  when a voter dismisses the primaries as  “too minor” to waste his or her precious time on.

Five will get you ten, when the general heats up, at least half of those who were “too busy” to help select their parties candidate, will  complain  that the General election is a regular “Sophie’s Choice.” Then they will proceed to whine endlessly about how much they hate being  “forced to select between the lesser of two evils…just to exercise his god-damned constitutionally guaranteed right to vote!”

On many occasions, I have asked such people, ever so sweetly (this is how I reel ’em in) “who did you vote for in the primary?”

This is almost always met with a blank stare.

Followed by a tap-dance about the General election being the important one.

I disagree.

Before we decide between us, we have to decide amongst ourselves who we want to bear our standard. At it’s best, at it’s finest, at it’s core, populist roots; this is the way politics is supposed to happen in a representative democracy.

The place to winnow out the reckless and the feckless is in the primary, not the General.  And if you don’t participate in the primary, I would strongly advise that you not complain about your choices come November.  Not in close proximity to me, anyway.

     
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.