On July 4 I marched with volunteers and staff for Jerry Sullivan, Democratic candidate in Iowa House district 59.

We don't hear much about state legislative races on national blogs, because it would be overwhelming to keep up with what's going on all over the country.

But you should get involved on behalf of a good Democrat running for your state's Assembly, House or Senate. Here's why.

1. The 2010 census looms.

Looking at states like Florida, Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania, Republicans hold more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives than they "should" have if you consider the statewide strength of Democrats and Republicans. One big reason is that Republicans dominated those states' legislatures during the last round of redistricting.

If you want an enduring Democratic majority and you live in a state with multiple Congressional districts, you should focus on getting more Democrats in the legislature.

2. Many policy matters are determined at the state level.

Even if Democrats already control your state legislature, I'll bet there aren't enough progressives working on some of the environmental, labor or election reform issues you care about.

In the Iowa legislature, clean elections reform and regulation of confined-animal feeding operations (CAFOs) are among the many issues that our Democratic leadership refuses to move forward.

The difference between a slim Democratic majority and a solid Democratic majority could make or break key legislative initiatives in the next two years.

In 2007, a "fair share" bill that would have strengthened unions in this right-to-work state didn't have enough support to clear the Iowa House. If we increase the Democratic majority from the current 53 seats (out of 100) to 55 or 57 seats, perhaps that bill could advance.

3. Getting progressive Democrats elected to state legislatures will build our bench for future House, Senate or gubernatorial races.

Candidates who have served in the legislature are often more knowledgeable on a range of policy issues. They are more seasoned on the campaign trail. They may also have good name recognition and contacts with the key political journalists in your state.

4. You probably can find a competitive statehouse race near you, no matter where you live.

Maybe you're in a state where the outcome of the presidential race is predetermined, and there are no competitive Congressional districts.

I'm betting you wouldn't have to go far to find some good Democrat facing a tough contest.

For example, let's say you live in Iowa City or Cedar Rapids. Barack Obama is heavily favored to win Iowa's electoral votes for reasons I discuss here. U.S. Senator Tom Harkin is getting a pass; his challenger has very little money or name recognition. Congressman Dave Loebsack represents your strongly Democratic district (D+7) in an area where Obama will have huge coattails. So, where should you volunteer?

Nate Willems, a former regional director for Howard Dean and occasional contributor to MyDD, is trying to hold House district 29, covering parts of Linn County and Johnson County. Longtime Democratic incumbent Ro Foege is retiring.

Eric Palmer, a freshman incumbent from Oskaloosa, could use your help in House district 75. The Republican he beat in 2006 is trying to win his seat back.

Elesha Gayman is another good freshman legislator. She narrowly defeated a two-term incumbent in House district 84, which is fairly evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans.

Palmer and Gayman are among five Democratic representatives in Iowa who have been targeted this year in corporate-funded radio and television commercials.

Swati Dandekar, current representative for House district 36, is trying to win Senate district 18, which has been held for a long time by retiring Republican Mary Lundby. That district includes a large area in Linn County.

If you're lucky, some blogger in your own state has compiled a handy list of the battleground districts. Otherwise, get active on your state community blog for Democrats and ask for advice on where to volunteer.

If you live near a state border, you may want to help a worthy Democrat in a neighboring state.

5. Your individual actions are more likely to make a difference in a statehouse race.

By all means, donate to and volunteer for Obama's campaign if you are inspired to do so, especially if you live in a competitive state.

But your money and volunteer energy will go further in a short-staffed legislative race.

Also, if you are considering a political career, either as a candidate or a campaign staffer, you will get more hands-on experience with a variety of tasks if you volunteer for a statehouse candidate.

You may think that Obama will give down-ticket candidates all the help they need in November. But depending on where you live, the Obama campaign may not be putting its GOTV muscle in the crucial legislative districts.

I was very concerned to learn a few days ago that the Iowa Democratic Party has in effect shut down its "coordinated campaign" and transferred control over GOTV statewide to the Obama campaign.

What's best for maximizing Obama's presidential vote is not necessarily what's best for maximizing the number of Democrats elected to the state legislature. For instance, Obama's field plan for Johnson County and Linn County might focus on student precincts in Iowa City and urban precincts in Cedar Rapids.

However, we need strong GOTV efforts in other parts of Linn and Johnson Counties if we want to elect Willems in House district 29 or Dandekar in Senate district 18.

I have no idea whether the Obama campaign's field plan for Polk County will focus on the precincts we need to elect Jerry Sullivan in House district 59.

Since I see little chance of John McCain winning Iowa's electoral votes, I would rather spend my volunteer time on competitive districts. Whether Obama wins Iowa by 5 percent or 10 percent is less important than getting more and better Democrats in the Iowa House and Senate.

I look forward to reading your comments on this topic. Also, please take the poll after the jump.

cross-posted at Bleeding Heartland

If you're not going out of town for the holiday weekend, I highly recommend that you march or ride with fellow Democrats in your local Independence Day parade.

These events are fantastic outreach opportunities for campaigns and a great way for you to meet like-minded neighbors.

It's not too late to volunteer. Just contact your county Democratic Party, or the campaign of a local candidate, or the Obama campaign office if there is one in your city. Ask where and when you should show up if you want to help out during the July 4 parades. (Keep in mind that some communities have parades on the evening of July 3.)

Here are a few more tips to help you enjoy the parade.

1. If you carry a sign, keep the message positive.

When you call to volunteer for the parade, ask if they will have a flag or a candidate's sign for you to carry.

If they ask you to bring your own sign, or you prefer to make your own sign, I encourage you to say something positive, either about a specific candidate or about your own values.

I've gotten lots of smiles and thumbs-up in the past with a hand-made sign that quotes the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths
to be self-evident,
that all men*
are created equal...

*and women!

2. If you wear a political t-shirt, keep the message positive.

I often wear a plain red or white shirt on July 4, but if you wear a t-shirt with a message, I'd make it a positive one about a candidate you like or Democrats generally.

Even people who agree with you are probably not going to want to see Bush Lied People Died or Don't blame me--I voted for Edwards during a holiday parade.

3. Don't take the bait if you get heckled by Republicans.

In my experience, few Republicans will bother you, but some jerk might try to get a rise out of you by mocking your candidate, or by saying, "I voted for Bush."

I wouldn't bother telling them your opinion of Republicans, or asking why able-bodied people like themselves aren't serving their country in Iraq.

Instead, model good behavior for the children who will be watching the parade.

You could ignore the hecklers, but I usually smile and say something friendly like, "My dad was a Republican" or "It's a free country" or "Happy Fourth of July!"

4. Protect yourself from the sun.

Parade routes can be two to four miles long, and you may be out in the sun for many hours, including the time you wait around for the parade to get started. If it's a sunny day, wear sunglasses or a hat to shade your eyes.

Bring some water so you don't get dehydrated.

Don't forget sunscreen, including on the back of your legs, neck and shoulders. But be aware that many sunscreens are ineffective, and some contain harmful chemicals. It's worth checking the Environmental Working Group's cosmetic safety database so you can select a good sunscreen.

5. If your local parade is in the evening, protect yourself from mosquitoes.

But I suggest using a repellent without DEET.

6. Wear comfortable shoes if you will be walking.

I can't emphasize this enough.

7. If you are unable to walk, make sure there will be room for you to ride.

You don't need to walk to volunteer on July 4. You can hold signs, wave or throw candy to children while riding in the truck or car your local Democrats are using. Just let the organizers know ahead of time that you'd like to ride in a vehicle during the parade.

Please share your Independence Day tips in the comments.

A poll on July 4 parades is after the jump.

In August of 2006, a man named Tim Walberg (R-Tipton) defeated incumbent Congressman Joe Schwarz (R-Battle Creek) in the Republican primary. Those that live in Michigan's 7th District may remember the vicious primary campaign, in which Walberg-- funded by the Club for Growth and other radical right-wing groups-- destroyed the name and good work of a dedicated public servant. Schwarz was conservative, but he was honest and hard-working, and was one of the few "good" Republicans left. And Tim Walberg, a former far-right minister, attacked Schwarz without mercy.

A few days after the primary, I started a blog called Walberg Watch. Originally hosted on Blogspot, I wanted to create an online record of Walberg's extreme positions as the 2006 election approached, facing the terribly underfunded Democratic nominee Sharon Renier. Walberg won that election by just four percent, and I found myself with a new blogging mission: following Tim Walberg's adventure through what will hopefully be his only term in the United States House of Representatives.

Over the last two years, a lot has changed, with much of it building toward the re-launch at the new www.WalbergWatch.com. Below the fold, I'd like to walk you through some of the additions to Walberg Watch. I'm excited by what we can accomplish in the next 126 days as we work to bring about better representation. I hope that by the time you're done reading this, you are too.

Two days before the June 3 Democratic primary in Iowa, I received an automated push-poll, followed the next day by a second robocall containing "important information" for me. Both calls were hit jobs on Jerry Sullivan, the leading Democratic candidate in Iowa House district 59.

Many of us will receive similar calls between now and November. We need to be prepared to help the Democrats who will be targeted in this way.

My number one piece of advice is do not hang up the phone.

Do not hang up the moment you hear an automated voice on the other end.

Do not hang up the moment you are asked to participate in a brief survey.

Do not hang up the moment you realize that this is not a legitimate opinion poll.

Stay on the line and grab a pen and paper for taking notes.

Follow me after the jump for further instructions.

As you may already know, John Ashcroft addressed the subject of whether waterboarding is torture at Knox College on Tuesday.  Although most of his defenses were tripe, he actually had a valid point with this remark:

Congress has defined it [torture], the law has the definition.  I don't believe the law has been violated--and if the law needs to be changed, you should talk to your congressman, not to me.

It's worth thinking about.  Why has Congress done nothing to stop Ashcroft and his ilk?  And why haven't we stepped up to the plate and forced our legislature to do their job?

I got a lot of emails and comments yesterday from people who wished they could have done what I did.  To all of them, I say this: you and I together can do something better.  We can make waterboarding and "enhanced interrogation" explicitly illegal once and for all.

We can pass Senate Bill 1943.

Simple question:  
Do you consider yourself a member of the "activist base of the Democratic Party"?.  I mean, we're all here looking to have some voice, to be heard, sometimes to influence others, or sometimes simply to rant.  What's your story?

I'm decidedly in the camp that believes that increased Democratic activism is a good thing, both for the party and the nation as a whole. With more of the Democratic base voting and volunteering and contributing, the Democrats have a much better shot at winning the White House with more than 50.1 percent of the vote -- a feat they haven't accomplished in 44 years -- and thus begin to enact much of the progressive change this country so desperately needs at this juncture. Apparently, though, some believe that increased Democratic activism isn't wholly a good thing, that there are negative consequences to these voters becoming more engaged in the American democracy. Here's The Huffington Post:

At a small closed-door fundraiser after Super Tuesday, Sen. Hillary Clinton blamed what she called the "activist base" of the Democratic Party -- and MoveOn.org in particular -- for many of her electoral defeats, saying activists had "flooded" state caucuses and "intimidated" her supporters, according to an audio recording of the event obtained by The Huffington Post.

"Moveon.org endorsed [Sen. Barack Obama] -- which is like a gusher of money that never seems to slow down," Clinton said to a meeting of donors. "We have been less successful in caucuses because it brings out the activist base of the Democratic Party. MoveOn didn't even want us to go into Afghanistan. I mean, that's what we're dealing with. And you know they turn out in great numbers. And they are very driven by their view of our positions, and it's primarily national security and foreign policy that drives them. I don't agree with them. They know I don't agree with them. So they flood into these caucuses and dominate them and really intimidate people who actually show up to support me."

Senator Clinton's remarks depart radically from the traditional position of presidential candidates who in the past have celebrated high levels of turnout by party activists and partisans as a harbinger for their own party's success -- regardless of who is the eventual nominee -- in the general election showdown.

The comments also contradict Clinton's previous statements praising this year's elevated Democratic turnout in primaries and caucuses, and appear to blame her caucus defeats on newly energized grassroots voter groups that she has lauded in the past as "lively participants" in American democracy.

[...]

The disclosure of Clinton's remarks disparaging the prominence of party activists in the caucus process comes after she repeatedly suggested that Obama's electability had been compromised because he had allegedly offended other key Democratic constituencies.

This is pretty remarkable audio, Clinton attacking MoveOn -- incorrectly, in fact -- for purportedly opposing the Afghanistan War when that was not at all the case.

But even more astounding than Clinton's specific attacks on MoveOn, a grassroots organization founded to defend her husband against the Republican power-grab that was the 1998 impeachment, an organization that is made up of more than three million activists, most of whom are diehard in their loyalty to the Democratic Party, is the fact that Clinton is maligning the Democratic base, specifically those who have been driven to the polls at least in part in response to the Iraq War.

It's not clear to me what it is about the view of American foreign policy held by these party regulars that Clinton disagrees with -- whether it was the view that Congress should not have authorized the Bush administration to commence military action against Iraq, whether it is that Congress should stand up against the Bush administration so that it cannot do the same against Iraq, or something else. I would actually be interested in hearing what that disagreement is.

I would also be interested in hearing more about this so-called "intimidation," if Clinton believes that it is a bad thing that voter turnout in almost every primary and caucus this year has set new records.

It could be that there is a valid explanation for these comments, that they were taken out of context, that they don't really reflect her views of the Democratic base and the netroots, that they were merely the result of the inevitable exhaustion brought on by near-constant campaigning. I'd like to hear it. But until I do, it's hard not to come away from these comments with the sense that Clinton holds a key part of the Democratic base in contempt.

It's 5pm and I'm sitting in an office in Los Angeles filled with almost a dozen Hillary Clinton volunteers. Why am I writing this diary? Because sometimes I feel that in all the back and forth we forget about the passion of the people on the ground. I've been phonebanking for Hillary since January; I've met dozens and dozens of people of different ages, races, and economic status. Some are students, some are full time workers, some are retired. Some of them have children while others are brand new voters. What is true of everyone here is that we are committed to a Democratic victory in November. I am not here because I am opposed to Barack Obama. If Barack Obama wins the nomination he will have my vote. But I am here because I believe in Hillary Clinton. I believe that the differences in their health care plans are not small ones. Out of the two plans only one will lead to universal healthcare. That difference alone is enough for me. Her plan is fantastic, if you haven't read it please do so: http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/he althcareplan/americanhealthchoicesplan.p df

They say she voted to authorize the war, I respond that he voted for Cheney's Energy bill. They say _, I say __...
That's not what this is about. We have two phenominal candidates and I would be proud to have either as my President. But with the majorities we are set to win in the House and Senate I don't see why we should give up on Universal Health Care. And please, make no mistake about it...Senator Obama's plan is not Universal as Elizabeth Edwards pointed out.  

Let's fight for our candidates in a positive way, let's stop this madness as it has gotten completely out of hand. There are two words I never want to hear and they are "President McCain."

I say best of luck to Obama but I'm not giving up the fight any time soon. I appeal to Obama supporters to stand against the viciousness one can find on the DailyKos and the HuffingtonPost because let us not forget that come November you cannot win without us and we cannot win without you.

7 Days until PA!

If you're not calling then put some coins in the piggybank!

https://contribute.hillaryclinton.com/fo rm.html?sc=2424