We’ve had ten days to decompress from the election. It’s time for a little self-promotion and self-criticism.

What did you predict accurately during the past presidential campaign, and what did you get completely wrong?

The ground rules for this thread are as follows:

1. This is about your own forecasting skills. Do not post a comment solely to mock someone else’s idiocy.

2. You are not allowed to boast about something you got right without owning up to at least one thing you got wrong.

3. For maximum bragging rights, include a link to a comment or diary containing your accurate prediction. Links are not required, though.

I’ll get the ball rolling. Here are some of the more significant things I got wrong during the presidential campaign that just ended.

I thought that since John Edwards had been in the spotlight for years, the Republicans would probably not be able to spring an “October surprise” on us if he were the Democratic nominee. Oops.

In 2006 I thought Hillary’s strong poll numbers among Democrats were

inflated by the fact that she has a lot of name recognition. I think once the campaign begins, her numbers will sink like Lieberman’s did in 2003.

Then when her poll numbers held up in most states throughout 2007, I thought Hillary’s coalition would collapse if she lost a few early primaries. Um, not quite.

I thought Barack Obama would fail to be viable in a lot of Iowa precincts dominated by voters over age 50.

I thought Obama had zero chance of beating John McCain in Florida.

Here are a few things I got right:

I consistently predicted that Hillary would finish no better than third in the Iowa caucuses. For that I was sometimes ridiculed in MyDD comment threads during the summer and fall of 2007.

I knew right away that choosing Sarah Palin was McCain’s gift to Democrats on his own birthday, because it undercut his best argument against Obama: lack of experience.

I immediately sensed that letting the Obama campaign take over the GOTV effort in Iowa might lead to a convincing victory for Obama here without maximizing the gains for our down-ticket candidates. In fact, Iowa Democrats did lose a number of statehouse races we should have won last week.

By the way, please consider helping Bleeding Heartland analyze what went wrong and what went right for Democrats in some of the state House and Senate races.

Paul Street has published a thought-provoking piece at Black Agenda Report: The Deeper Racism in Iowa: Beneath the White Obama Craze.

I recommend clicking through and reading this whole article, but here are some passages that illustrate the argument he is making:

Barack Obama’s January 3rd Democratic Caucus victory in Iowa demonstrated that a Black man – or, at least, this particular Black man – could attract winning numbers of white voters. The candidate’s supporters claimed Iowa signaled a new day, that “race doesn’t matter” anymore in the United States. They are in a fantasy of denial. Not only does race remain imbedded in American social relations, but Iowa is especially afflicted with the compulsion to throw African Americans in prison more frequently than any other state. “Liberal” Iowans, proud that their state began a cascade of Obama victories, find it more difficult than ever to face up to the racism that distorts all cross-racial interaction in their cities and towns.

Interestingly enough, you don’t see many if any white liberal Iowa City Obama supporters involved in efforts to fight and overcome routine institutional racism and racial harassment in their city and state.

Given the purported anti-racism behind their support for Obama, they seem remarkably indifferent to – and ignorant of – Iowa’s status as the nation’s leader in disproportionate black imprisonment.

Some of the black and liberal students here find this a paradox.  I have a different perspective. Two days before the heavily Caucasian Iowa caucus, one forthcoming and self-critical caucus-goer and neighbor told me something I’d been suspecting for some time. Obama, he said, was “a way for liberal and moderate whites around here to pat themselves on the back for not being too prejudiced to vote for a black guy.”  But it was all premised, he agreed, on Obama being a “good,” that is non-threatening, middle-class, academic-friendly, and “not-too fiery black” – one who seemed unlikely to confront institutional white supremacy in any way more meaningful than attaining higher office. Like the racially accomodationist, white-friendly media mogul and mass Obama marketer Oprah Winfrey (who came through Iowa to stump for him a few weeks before that state’s critical Caucus), Obama capitalized on middle class whites’ rejection of openly bigoted “level-one” (state-of-mind) racism only because he reassured them he would honor their refusal to acknowledge and confront the continuing power of deeper, “level two” (state-of-being) – societal and institutional – racism in American life. I have spoken with local middle-class whites for whom loving the “good” (bourgeois) black Obama is the other side of the coin of hating the “bad” and “underclass” blacks who are becoming more evident in Iowa City.

The town’s white liberals don’t seem interested in tackling the deeper institutional racism that lives on beneath the surface while they congratulate themselves for being willing to back a certain non-threatening kind of black candidate. They certainly don’t want to look closely at the unpleasant picture of how racial and class oppression produce  pain and inequality in their own schools, neighborhoods, and community. They respond very well to what Black Agenda Report’s Glen Ford has identified as Obama’s “strategy to win the White House” by “run[ning] a ‘race-neutral’ campaign in a society that is anything but neutral on race.” As Ford notes, “the very premise – that race neutrality is possible in a nation built on white supremacy – demand[s] the systematic practice of the most profound race-factual denial, which is ultimately indistinguishable from rank dishonesty.”

I would like to hear your views on this piece, especially if you are an Obama supporter and/or an Iowa City resident.

Bleeding Heartland readers, I would be interested in your views on how the Iowa caucuses might have turned out differently.

Let’s assume that Barack Obama runs the exact campaign he ran last year in terms of strategy and execution, and has the same monetary resources he had available.

What, if anything, could other candidates have done to beat Obama in Iowa? Keep in mind that both Clinton and Edwards executed their strategies pretty well in Iowa (in my opinion), with

both of them getting more than 70,000 people to stand in their corners on January 3. That “should” have been enough to win, even if turnout had been “only” 50 percent greater than the previous record for Iowa Democrats.

Given the Obama campaign’s excellent strategy and execution, as well as their virtually unlimited monetary resources in Iowa, what could other candidates have done to win the Iowa caucuses?

These are examples of the kinds of questions I’m interested in:

Should Hillary have used Bill more, or used him less?

Would it have helped Clinton or Edwards to go negative on Obama?

Were there better methods Clinton could have used to identify and turn out supporters?

Was there anything Richardson could have done in the summer to build on the bump he got from his television commercials in May?

Would Edwards have done better if his stump speech and advertising had focused on different issues?

Should Edwards have spent some money on advertising in the summer, when he slipped behind Clinton in the Iowa polls, rather than keeping his powder dry?

Feel free to post your insights about these and similar questions on this thread.

Alternatively, if you have thoughts you’d rather keep off the record, please e-mail them to me at desmoinesdem AT yahoo.com, or e-mail me your phone number and I will call you to chat. I will keep your views confidential.

Thomas Beaumont wrote this article in the Sunday Des Moines Register on Iowa’s superdelegates. The whole article is worth reading, and it includes this useful sidebar:

Iowa is expected to have 12 superdelegates to the Democratic National Convention in Denver in August. They include all four Democratic members of Congress, Iowa’s governor and its six members of the Democratic National Committee. The 12th superdelegate will be chosen at the Iowa Democratic Party’s state convention in June.

Below are the names of those superdelegates, their titles and whom they have endorsed for the 2008 presidential nomination.

SUPPORTING HILLARY CLINTON

LEONARD BOSWELL, U.S. House member from Des Moines.

MIKE GRONSTAL, Iowa Senate majority leader from Council Bluffs and member of the DNC as chairman of Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee.

SANDY OPSTVEDT, Iowa labor union leader and at-large DNC member from Story City.

SARAH SWISHER, Iowa City nurse, labor union leader and member of the DNC as state Democratic Party vice chairwoman. Endorsed Edwards, but has backed Clinton since Edwards left the race.

SUPPORTING BARACK OBAMA

CHET CULVER, Iowa governor, endorsed Obama on Thursday.

MIKE FITZGERALD, Iowa treasurer and member of the DNC as member of National Association of State Democratic Treasurers’ executive committee.

DAVID LOEBSACK, U.S. House member from Mount Vernon.

UNCOMMITTED

SCOTT BRENNAN, Des Moines lawyer and member of the DNC as Iowa Democratic Party chairman.

BRUCE BRALEY, U.S. House member from Waterloo. Endorsed John Edwards in December, but is uncommitted since Edwards’ departure from the race.

TOM HARKIN, U.S. senator

RICHARD MACHACEK, Winthrop farmer and at-large DNC member. Was a longtime Edwards supporter, but now is uncommitted.

It was news to me that Swisher had committed to Clinton, although I’m not surprised, since Clinton has a better health care plan than Obama. I wonder if the other former Edwards supporters will be influenced by a possible Edwards endorsement, or if they will wait and see.

If you want to know what other states’ superdelegates are doing, keep an eye on the “Superdelegate transparency project”, which Chris Bowers announced yesterday at OpenLeft:

We are compiling the district-by-district results of the popular vote and pledged delegates, and then tracking these results against how superdelegates are currently pledged (or have publicly endorsed a candidate), and how they eventually vote. The aim of this project is to open up the Democratic nomination process, and to gauge what effect the superdelegates have on the nomination.

Bowers has a secondary goal, which is to persuade superdelegates to back the candidate who wins the pledged delegates and the overall popular vote:

Until a single leader in the popular vote and pledged delegate count emerges at the end of the primary and caucus season, superdelegates should not make a firm commitment to vote for any candidate at the convention other than the popular choice of their constituents. Endorsements can be made, but in order to uphold the principles of democracy within the Democratic Party, there should be no firm commitments from any given superdelegate to vote for anyone at the convention other than the candidate chosen by the constituents of that superdelegate.

[…]my democratic standard for super delegates is that if one candidate wins pledged delegates and popular votes according to all counts, then all super delegates should vote for that candidate. However, since we won’t know if a candidate achieves that standard until the end of the primary / caucus season, and since it is possible no candidate will ever achieve that standard, then in the interim all super delegates should pledge to vote their districts.

Will Iowa’s superdelegates go with the winner of all pledged delegates and the overall popular vote, even if that candidate is not their first choice? The Des Moines Register article includes the following quotes:

“If it’s as close as it stands today, I would still be casting my vote for Hillary,” said Sandy Opstvedt, a labor union leader and superdelegate from Story City.

Sounds like Opstvedt is leaving the door open to switching to Obama, if he becomes the clear leader in pledged delegates.

Governor Chet Culver, who endorsed Obama last week, cited Obama’s victory in the Iowa caucuses as a factor in his decision:

“I do think it matters too that Iowans have spoken loudly and clearly,” Culver said in a Des Moines Register interview Friday. “And because of that, in part, I felt compelled to also stand with him.”

“I’d love it if every superdelegate supported Barack Obama,” Culver also said, adding that he had begun making calls to the others.

Does that mean that Culver would not switch, even if Clinton finished the primaries with more popular votes and more pledged delegates than Obama?

Meanwhile, Iowa Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal

declined to comment on whether he would consider changing his support if Obama gathered more delegates than Clinton as the result of the upcoming nominating contests.

Gronstal said he can justify supporting Clinton in part because she got the most support, 43 percent, in Pottawattamie County on caucus night.

“Representing my constituents, I can make the case that’s exactly what I’m doing,” Gronstal said.

Representative Leonard Boswell (IA-03) seems more committed to sticking with Clinton unless she gives her superdelegate supporters the green light to switch to Obama. Speaking to the Register, Boswell

said the superdelegate system was not intended to reflect voter sentiment.

“It’s always important to respond to the voters, but I don’t think it was designed that way,” Boswell said.

He said he planned to support Clinton at the national convention, and would only consider a change after consulting her.

Expect Boswell to take a lot of heat for this position if Obama racks up a big lead in the pledged delegates later this spring. The Des Moines Register published this letter to the editor on Wednesday, written by a constituent in Des Moines:

Leonard Boswell’s pledge to cast his superdelegate vote for Sen. Hillary Clinton at the National Democratic Convention troubles me. Barack Obama won Boswell’s 3rd District by a large enough margin to win one more delegate than Clinton, who came in third in that district.

Yet Boswell’s vote, which he has only because he is our representative, will negate that margin of victory, rendering the votes of tens of thousands of us meaningless. That’s just not right. Maybe all of us whose votes Boswell will negate should return the favor by supporting his opponent, Ed Fallon, in the upcoming Democratic primary.

For the record, I agree with Bowers. Superdelegates should not be willing to hand the nomination to one candidate if the other candidate leads both the pledged delegate count and the overall popular vote. That would be disastrous for our party.

It’s one of those rare days when I largely agree with David Yepsen’s latest column: Parties must probe caucus complaints, make fixes. He points out that any problems with the way the caucuses were run will be fodder for those who will try to deprive Iowa of first-in-the-nation status for the next campaign.

Already the Republican Party will be looking to ditch Iowa, because the GOP establishment can’t stand Mike Huckabee. If Hillary Clinton becomes the Democratic nominee and wins, or if Barack Obama becomes the Democratic nominee and loses, the Democratic Party establishment will also have the knives out for Iowa.

Yepsen suggests moving the caucuses to Saturday at 5 pm, a time when fewer shift workers are on duty and young families may find it easier to get a baby-sitter. I would support that change.

Yepsen lists some of the alleged problems with the caucuses, but he left out some very disturbing problems I’ve heard about. One of the most troubling reports, written by observers in a precinct on Des Moines’ south side, maintained that counting was rushed to prevent second-tier candidates from becoming viable.

I was also sorry to hear some accounts of bullying the supporters of non-viable candidates. Daily Kos user neia was disturbed by what happened at the caucus in Strawberry Point (northeast Iowa). While I am sure this is the exception, not the rule, the Iowa Democratic Party should train precinct chairs to prevent anyone from exerting undue pressure on caucus-goers during the realignment period.

UPDATE: This Daily Kos diary includes more allegations about irregularities:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyo…

Several people have asked me what happened at my precinct caucus. I told part of the story last week, but in case anyone is interested, the longer version is after the jump.

Use this as an open thread to tell the story of your precinct caucus, whether or not there were problems with the way it operated.

Congratulations to Hillary Clinton for winning New Hampshire. But there is much more at stake to this horse race than the skim surface of the campaign mechanics the mainstream media tells.

Though Hillary Clinton won New Hampshire, her back door dealings have already seem to have secured her a position in the White House, barely trying.

Just like the general election where the electoral college is the only vote that matters, the primaries have a similar system that parallels the electoral college in process. It’s call the delegates and superdelegates.

Here’s an explanation of what they are and how they’re selected. They aren’t voted for at all.

And here is the list of delegates who have already committed to a candidate even BEFORE the primaries.

Clinton’s campaign co-chair is Terri McAuliffe, who works and is very influential in the DNC. He was able to lock all of the DNC for Hillary anyways. What is your opinion on it?

There has been a flurry of blog posts and news stories talking about the entrance polling and the results of the caucuses.  The basics we know include things like record turnout and a surge in the number of youth showing up to the Democratic caucuses, as well as ‘no party’ folks changing their registration to Democrat.

I don’t have the capacity nor the will power to significantly examine all of the results county by county, candidate by candidate.  But I can direct you towards some very interesting information.

First of all, if you’d like some detailed results and would like to see some maps, feel free to check out CaucusResults.com which has the detailed information about the results courtesy of the Iowa Democratic Party.  If you provided some information to the party prior to caucus night by visiting IowaCaucusResults.com then you should’ve received an email notification with a password so you could log in.  If you didn’t and would like to be able to see the information, feel free to email me and I can get you logged in.

Secondly, one of the big things that we’ve seen talked about is the amount of youth turnout for the caucuses.  Whether you call youth 17-24 year olds or 17-29 year olds it seems pretty clear that folks my age showed up and participated.  Iowa Student Public Interest Research Group (PIRG) put out a release talking about the numbers (which can be found here) and it clearly shows how the youth support was another cushion of support for Barack Obama.  The Register examined the same thing here, while also noting the evangelical Christian support that helped Huckabee.  The Register also provides a county map that shows which candidate won which county, including counties that are “ties” (at least according to percentage totals).  The breakdown follows like this:

• Barack Obama: 41 counties
• John Edwards: 29 counties
• Hillary Clinton: 25 counties
• Ties: 4 counties

Looking specifically at the four counties where there were ties, they were ties because the number of delegates for first place were evenly divided.  Three were tied for Clinton and Edwards; one was split for Clinton and Obama.

Finally, and I think this is one of most fascinating posts and discussion about the caucus results, go over to the Daily Yonder and read their post about how Democratic and Republican candidates did in rural Iowa.  Edwards’ strategy focused heavily on rural Iowa, and while it paid off for him a bit, it wasn’t the deciding fact simply because of the turnout Barack Obama was able to bring about in both urban and rural Iowa.  Fascinating piece of information alert:

“Both Edwards and Clinton won more votes in rural Iowa than in urban Iowa.”

I’ll leave that little bit of information to you guys to figure out what it means in the grand scheme of things in this presidential race.  Any other interesting demographics or information you think we should talk about?

UPDATE (3:40 PM): I just got a fundraising email from Joe Trippi on behalf of the Edwards campaign.  Seems like they’re going to keep piling on the money today. -Chris

I’m not one big on making releases front-page material here on BH, but I’ll try to condense this release from the Edwards Campaign to something we can talk about, with the full release available here:

“We have been absolutely overwhelmed by the response to Sen. Edwards’ strong finish in Iowa,” said Edwards’ senior strategist Joe Trippi. “We’re on track for our best online fundraising day ever, since www.JohnEdwards.com went up a year ago – and half of the contributions we’re seeing are from new donors to the campaign. That speaks volumes to the strength of John Edwards’ message of standing up and fighting for the middle class.”

The campaign first saw an uptick in online fundraising late last night, as the results from Iowa’s first-in-the-nation contest began rolling in. The surge continued overnight, and by 8:45am ET this morning the campaign’s online contributions had already topped the previous day’s day-long total. Between the hours of 10:00am and 11:00am ET today, the campaign experienced its best online fundraising hour ever.”

I’m not sure what this means in the grand scheme of online fundraising for the top-tier Democrats, or even the Edwards campaign itself since there aren’t really specific numbers and totals.  However, I think it will be really interesting to see what Obama and Clinton are seeing in terms of their own online fundraising and I hope they put out some information about those numbers soon.

A couple other quick facts from the Edwards campaign:

• Half of those who have contributed are first-time donors to the campaign
• More than ninety percent (92.6%) of today’s online contributions are for amounts less than $100

Those are some pretty impressive figures.  Let me know if you hear of any more numbers or interesting stories.

Chris Dodd and Joe Biden have both decided to leave the presidential race and will be going back to the Senate.  I wish them the best of luck.  In the extended entry, you can read Dodd’s remarks to supporters and you can read the release from Biden’s campaign.

On behalf of Iowa Democrats and the Bleeding Heartland community, let me say thank you to both Senators for their remarkable fight and effort they put into the caucuses.  Without Biden, we wouldn’t be able to have the serious debate about the future of Iraq like we’ve been able to have.  Without Dodd, things like FISA and restoring the Constitution would have been tossed aside.  These men have extraordinary experience and are good leaders for the Democratic party.

We Iowans are interesting people.  Of all the Senators and former Senators in the race, we picked the one with the least experience in that institution.  Maybe it is because of his message of hope, of unity, of change.  But we also looked past a combined 50+ years of experience in the Senate.  Is that a bad thing?  I don’t know.  I hope not.

However, these two men can now head back to the Senate and keep working hard for our majorities in Congress.  And pressing this reckless President for change.  Dodd can keep fighting and filibustering.  And who knows, maybe we’ll see one of these men later on as a vice president.

Or maybe as the new Senate Democratic leader.

One more time, thank you!

I have a lot of questions about the deal struck between the Obama and Richardson campaigns, and I would be grateful to Bleeding Heartland readers who can shed light on any of them.

1. How much initial support did Richardson have last night? The Iowa Democratic Party does not report this information. I would like to hear from as many people as possible about how many people were in Richardson’s corner after the first division into preference groups. In my precinct he had 28 out of 293 people, or about 9.6 percent.

2. Was this a one-way deal, or did the Obama campaign promise to instruct its captains to help Richardson become viable where he was close to the threshold?

Obama volunteers out there, did you get any encouragement to help Richardson out at the caucus?

I’m assuming that either this wasn’t part of the deal, or Obama volunteers did not follow through, because Richardson only ended up with 2.1 percent of the state delegates. Clearly he fell below the threshold in many, many places.

3. Did the Richardson supporters predominantly go to Obama during the realignment? In my precinct a lot came to Edwards–perhaps even more than the number who went to Obama, though I can’t be sure of that. However, a friend who’s an Obama precinct captain near Hoover High School told me that in her precinct the Richardson captain brought pretty much the whole group over. Marc Ambinder observed something similar.

If Richardson had 8-10 percent support in a lot of precincts, and this deal really did transfer his supporters overwhelmingly to Obama, that alone accounts for Obama’s winning margin.

I would like to hear from as many Iowans as possible about how the Richardson supporters moved during realignment at your caucus. If you don’t want to post a comment, please e-mail me at desmoinesdem AT yahoo.com.

4. Was there some kind of falling out recently between Richardson and Clinton? For most of the year people assumed that if Richardson struck any kind of deal, it would be with Hillary. Bill Clinton elevated him from Congress to UN ambassador and later to secretary of energy, and Richardson and the Clintons have a similar outlook on trade and other economic issues.

If any Bleeding Heartland readers were involved in the Clinton or Richardson campaigns and can shed light on this question, please let us know or e-mail me confidentially.

UPDATE: I am hearing more stories from friends all the time. In one neighboring precinct, the Clinton people sent enough supporters to make Richardson viable so that Edwards would not get an extra delegate. In another precinct, the Dodd, Richardson and Biden groups combined were 19 short of viability. Obama’s group had more than enough people to send over 19 without losing any of their delegates, but they refused, so most of the Dodd, Richardson and Biden group went over to Edwards.

Cross-posted at Daily Kos and MyDD. Please take the poll and comment. Now’s a good time to discuss the merits of the system we experienced last night.

When I publish a diary criticizing the caucus system, I usually hear from at least one person defending the caucuses.

This diary lists the arguments I’ve heard in favor of the caucus system, along with my responses.

More is after the jump.

I was skeptical, but clearly the strategy of focusing on first-time caucus-goers paid off in a big way for Barack Obama.

Turnout in my precinct went from 175 in 2004 to 293 tonight. That was way more than I ever imagined possible.

We had first-timers in our Edwards group, and so did Hillary, and for all I know Richardson and Biden did too. But there’s no question that the Obama group had the most first-time caucus-goers.

After the first division into preference groups, we had Obama 86, Edwards 83, Clinton 63, Richardson 28, Biden 24 and Dodd 9. To be viable, candidates needed 44 supporters.

After the second division into preference groups, Edwards had 115, Obama had 103, and Clinton had 72, but unfortunately, the math worked out to 2 delegates for each candidate.

In retrospect, the Edwards and Obama groups would have been better off helping Richardson to be viable. Then the delegates would have been split 2 Edwards, 2 Obama, 1 Clinton and 1 Richardson. But there was no way to know that, and during the realignment of course the Edwards and Obama groups were focused on attracting enough supporters to win that third delegate.

It’s very similar to what happened in my precinct in 1988. The delegates split 2-2-2 despite a fairly large difference in size between the largest and the smallest. That’s the caucus system for you.

By the way, the Richardson precinct captain confirmed that the campaign was advising people to go to Obama. However, a lot of them came over to Edwards anyway. The Biden precinct captain told me he did not receive any similar instruction from that campaign.

Wow, I just got done with my precinct caucus–I was chair and had to tally results.  Des Moines 4 went for Sen. Barack Obama, but just barely.  He left with two delegates, two for John Edwards, and one for Hillary Clinton.

Let me know what’s going on in your caucus. We had amazing turnout–122 people–with almost 40 newly registered Democrats who were formerly registered as no party or Republicans.  And they came to caucus for all three of the big name candidates.

What’s on your mind?  And how about these turnout results?  Seriously, 221,000 Democrats as of right now. Over 100,000 Republicans.  That’s over 300,000 Iowans.

Eat it, Markos. Iowans turnout. And we take things seriously.

Various media and blogs are reporting that Richardson's campaign is instructing precinct captains to advise supporters to go to Obama if Richardson is not viable.

So far no official confirmation from the Richardson campaign.

I find it hard to belive that most Richardson supporters will go to Obama, but who knows? I'll ask the captain in my precinct later today.

Anyone else have information on this?

It’s put up or shut up time. How are the candidates going to do tomorrow night?

I don’t think all three will finish closely bunched together. Either someone will win by a clear margin, or someone will be in third by a clear margin.

I am having trouble making my final prediction, because I wouldn’t be too surprised by any one of the top three winning. Here goes:

Edwards 35 percent

Obama 28 percent

Clinton 27 percent

Biden 5 percent

Richardson 4 percent

Dodd 1 percent

Kucinich 0 percent

In my precinct: 2 delegates for Edwards, 2 for Clinton, 1 for Obama, 1 for Biden

I would so love to get that third delegate for Edwards, but I fear we will fall short.

On the Republican side, I have no clue about the numbers, but I think the order will be Huckabee, Romney, McCain, Giuliani, Paul, Thompson, Keyes, Cox, Hunter. I don’t think Steve King is going to deliver anything significant to Fred Thompson.

UPDATE: I forgot to include my prediction for Democratic turnout: 140,000. I have no clue about the Republican turnout, except that it will be less than 100,000.

I was knocking on doors in my precinct on Sunday, and I noticed a few Ron Paul brochures stuck in the doors of Democratic households. At first I thought they might be homes where one spouse is a Democrat and the other is a Republican, but checking my list, they seemed to be homes where both residents are registered Ds.

I did not examine the flier closely, so I don’t know whether it came from Paul’s campaign or from an outside group supporting him.

On Sunday night or Monday night, I got a robocall supporting Paul. The script emphasized that Democrats in Congress have failed to end the war, and none of the Democratic candidates would be able to end the war. It urged me to caucus for Ron Paul because unlike the Democrats, he has always been against the war and would be able to end the war. It also mentioned a few of Paul’s other policy positions.

My kids were making too much noise for me to hear the name of the group that paid for the robocall. I did catch the “not authorized by any candidate or any candidate’s committee” at the end, so it wasn’t the Paul campaign.

This seems like a complete waste of money to me. Are there really a bunch of Democrats who can’t find anyone they like in our current field? Even hard-core antiwar Democrats can still caucus for Kucinich if they like.

But maybe I’m wrong and these tactics will persuade a significant number of Democrats to cross over and caucus on the GOP side.

Anyone else get this phone call or leaflet? Do you know any Democrats who plan to caucus for Ron Paul?

Gordon Fischer put up this post at Iowa True Blue, titled “Ten Reasons to Support Barack Obama on Thursday, January 3”:

http://www.iowatrueblue.com/Bl…

10.  Barack Obama opposed the Iraq War from the start.

9.  He opposed the Iraq War in 2002.

8.  He opposed the Iraq War in 2003.

7.  He opposed the Iraq War in 2004.

6.  He opposed the Iraq War in 2005.

5.  He opposed the Iraq War in 2006.

4.  He opposed the Iraq War in 2007.

3.  The Iraq War may well be the biggest foreign policy fiasco in our nation’s history.

2.  Barack Obama had the right judgment from the start, all the way until now — the Iraq War was a tremendous mistake.

1.  The Iraq War has cost us several thousand American lives, many more wonded, and literally billions of dollars.  And, ultimately, it has made our great country less safe.

Since Gordon does not post comments on his blog, I am asking my question here.

In what way was Barack Obama opposing the Iraq War in 2005 and 2006, when, as a senator, he voted for Iraq War supplemental funding bills?

As a candidate for Senate in the spring of 2004, he said it was time for Democrats to stop getting “steamrolled” by Bush on war funding. That was around the time that John Kerry and John Edwards voted against the $87 billion supplemental funding bill (the vote was 88-12–that was way before the majority of Americans turned against the war).

Then Obama got elected and voted several times to keep funding the war.

This spring, Chris Dodd led the opposition to the latest supplemental funding bill within the Senate, but Obama sat on the sidelines. Edwards urged Congress to reject any more war funding with no timeline for withdrawing troops. (“No timeline, no funding. No excuses.”)

But Obama didn’t even announce how he would vote, let alone lead the charge to attach a timeline for drawing down troops. He and Hillary sat there until almost everyone else had voted, then finally cast their “no” votes.

Tell me again, what has Obama done to oppose the Iraq War in 2005, 2006 and 2007? Other than continually give speeches reminding people that he called it a “dumb war”?

Obama has failed to lead on defunding the war, despite suggesting before he was elected that he would take a firm line on war funding.

It’s been obvious for a long time that Bush will never draw down troops unless Congress forces his hand by using the power of the purse.

P.S. in response to this post:

http://www.iowatrueblue.com/Bl…

John Edwards has never taken money from federal PACs or federal lobbyists. And it’s a bit rich for an Obama supporter to complain about people backing other candidates trying to “buy” the Iowa caucuses, when Obama has spent more than $8 million on tv ads alone in Iowa. Who knows how many millions he will have spent on his campaign here when it’s all over?  

In a primary or general election, you win your precinct by getting more people to vote for your candidate than for any other candidate.

But in the Iowa caucuses, there must be 50 ways to win your precinct.

OK, maybe not 50, but a lot of ways. I’ll go over them after the jump.

I got a flier today from the American Federation of Teachers, which has endorsed Hillary Clinton. The mailer cites part of the Des Moines Register’s endorsement of Clinton to make the case that, “Hillary is prepared to bring real change.”

I’ve noticed that all of the candidates have been reaching out to teachers, referencing their education plans in campaign appearances and direct-mail pieces. Bill Richardson has emphasized his “bold” education plan in more than one piece, and he and Joe Biden have both emphasized that they would scrap No Child Left Behind.

Daily Kos user teacherken (teacherken.dailykos.com) has reviewed several of the candidates’ education proposals and has had high praise for both the Edwards and Obama plans.

The teachers I know seem to be all over the map–I don’t see any one candidate dominating this group, which will account for a large number of caucus-goers.

Those of you who are teachers, are married to teachers, or know a lot of teachers, who do you think will win this group?

Well, well, well. The conservative establishment loves when evangelicals vote Republican, but apparently they don’t love it when evangelicals plan to vote for one of their own.

Blogger Jeff Fuller, who supports Mitt Romney, put up this incredibly long list of “conservative/GOP icons” who have criticized Mike Huckabee lately. (hat tip to Jerome Armstrong)

Will Huckabee be able to withstand so much incoming fire?

By the way, a homeschooler who supports Huckabee tells me that Ron Paul supporters are circulating the hit piece I referenced a few days ago, which claims Huckabee is no friend to homeschoolers.

Jerome Armstrong put up this post at MyDD with graphs comparing the Clinton, Edwards and Obama campaigns with the Kerry 2004 campaign in terms of paid staff in Iowa, field offices in Iowa, days spent campaigning in Iowa, and money spent on tv in Iowa:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007…

It’s worth your time to click through and read the post.

The Des Moines Register reported on Saturday that some family farmers and sustainable agriculture advocates are upset about Hillary Clinton’s choice of Joy Philippi to co-chair “Rural Americans for Hillary.”

Clinton has talked about more regulations of confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs), but  

Philippi is a recent past president of the National Pork Producers Council.

“That’s the poster organization for corporate agriculture,” said [family farmer Garry] Klicker, who owns about 120 acres in rural Bloomfield and raises about 130 cows and calves.

Klicker said that because Clinton picked Philippi, he doesn’t believe the candidate when she says she will champion small farms if she is elected president.

“I’m just very disappointed that Hillary would turn her back on us like this,” said Klicker, who said he is unsure whom he will caucus for but is leaning toward Democrat Joe Biden. “She says she’ll do one thing, yet when you surround yourself with people who are against the rest of us, we can’t expect anything good to happen on family farm issues.”

I know some Hillary supporters believe that she is just campaigning as a moderate and would govern as a true progressive. Stories like this are why I have a lot of trouble believing that. Corporate ag interests have too much power, and I can’t see Hillary taking them on.

In a little more than 30 minutes, Des Moines-based KCCI TV will release their last Iowa caucus poll that will show that Iowa Democrats are equally divided in their support for presidential candidates Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Barack Obama.

Lee Newspapers was also involved in the polling effort (whether through helping pay for it, sponsoring it, etc.) and they published their story online with the numbers earlier today.

“The poll, conducted with 500 likely caucus goers from each party on Wednesday and Thursday, showed Edwards and Obama tied with 29 percent to lead Democrats, followed by Clinton with 28 percent. Bill Richardson was fourth with 7 percent. Joe Biden was fifth with 3 percent. Chris Dodd and Dennis Kucinich both had 1 percent and 2 percent were undecided.”

The margin of error was +/- 4.5%, clearing showing that Democrats were equally divided.  Among Democrats, 19% still said they are likely or very likely to change their minds.  Keep an eye on Iowa Democrats’ second choices.

In other news, keep your ears open for message testing calls or “push polls.”  Desmoinesdem highlighted her husband’s call here and I just received the same call.  Make sure to check out the Off The Bus site about polling experience if you’ve received any calls.

Earlier this year, Bleeding Heartland co-founder Drew Miller created a caucus math spreadsheet so we could play around with different scenarios and see how delegates would be allocated:

http://www.bleedingheartland.c…

Now Daily Kos and MyDD user asahopkins has created an Iowa Caucus Calculator website, which also is a user-friendly way to explore caucus math:

http://caucusmath.com/

You enter the number of delegates for your pretend precinct as well as the total number of attendees and the number of supporters for each candidate, and it tells you how the delegates would be assigned.

Have fun!

Mike Huckabee’s rapid rise in the polls, both national as well as early-state, may have come a bit too soon. Romney has been running negative ads against him, and other information that does not cast Huckabee in a flattering light is trickling into the media discourse.

Mike Allen is reporting on the Politico blog that Huckabee is still earning an undisclosed amount of money from speaking fees while campaigning for president. It’s nothing like the kind of cash Rudy Giuliani pulls in, but could this story damage Huckabee’s image?

Meanwhile, below the radar, a hit piece claiming Huckabee is “no friend of homeschoolers” is apparently making the rounds on conservative homeschoolers’ blogs.

I’m betting Huckabee can ride this stuff out, at least in Iowa. But probably he would have been better served by peaking a few weeks later. What do you think?

It’s the day after Christmas, and hundreds or perhaps thousands of Democrats from all over the country will soon travel to Iowa to volunteer for their favorite presidential candidate.

I know we are supposed to laugh at the “fish out of water” trying to persuade Iowa caucus-goers, but I appreciate the level of commitment these people show by coming here and walking the walk.

Gordon Fischer linked to this article from the New York Observer: Hillary Bundlers Canvass, Humbly, in Iowa. He titled his post, “Future Presidential Candidates Take Note: How NOT To Run An Iowa Campaign.”

I admit that I laughed a few times when I read the article, but mostly I give these rich New Yorkers a lot of credit. They’re wealthy enough to pay other people to do everything for them, but here they were on a cold day in December, walking the streets of Ames to encourage Iowans to caucus for their personal friend, Hillary Clinton.

I like reading diaries by out-of-state volunteers, no matter which candidate they are supporting. So if you are visiting Iowa to help out with a campaign, consider putting up a diary like this one by icebergslim or this one by clarkent to tell us about your experiences.

If you’re in the Des Moines area and need restaurant recommendations, e-mail me at desmoinesdem AT yahoo.com. We have a lot of good options!

I’ve always been skeptical that the deal between Dennis Kucinich and John Edwards was a big factor in 2004. A lot of Kucinich supporters did go to Edwards where Dennis was not viable, but a lot went to Howard Dean despite the deal.

The Dick Gephardt supporters who flowed to Edwards as a second choice were much more numerous, and they overwhelmingly chose Edwards in the absence of any formal deal between the candidates.

I see a lot of speculation on the blogs about Bill Richardson instructing his supporters to choose Hillary Clinton if he is not viable. I don’t expect him to make that kind of announcement, and even if he did, I don’t expect that most of his supporters would move that way.

The little deals that precinct captains all over the state will make could be important, especially if Clinton’s captains try to deprive Barack Obama of delegates and vice versa.

But I don’t expect any kind of public instruction from the Democratic candidates about whom their supporters should back as a second choice.

What do you think?

CBS reporter Chip Reid is “embedded” with John Edwards’ campaign and posted this on the CBS blog:

I’m a bit unhappy with John Edwards. I’ve been covering his campaign for 10 days and he hasn’t made a lot of news. Let’s face it – a lot of what political reporters report on is mistakes. The campaign trail is one long minefield, covered with Iowa cow pies, and when they step in one – we leap.

I’ve done very little leaping – and I blame Edwards. While other candidates misspeak, over-speak, and double-speak, Edwards (at least in these 10 days) has made so few mistakes that I end up being transported — newsless — from town to town like a sack of Iowa corn .

He has a remarkable ability to stay on message. Not just in “the speech,” but even in Q and A. Nothing throws him off. He turns nearly every question into another opportunity to repeat his central theme. Global warming? We need to fight big oil. Health care? Fight the big drug and insurance companies. Iowa farmers’ problems? Blame those monster farm conglomerates. And the Iowa populists eat it up. We’ll see how well it works in other states.

He’s even disciplined in his daily routine. While most reporters use the campaign trail as an excuse to over-eat and abandon their exercise routines, Edwards squeezes in a run EVERY DAY, rain, sleet, or shine.

Come on John – relax. Step in an Iowa cow pie and let me do my job.

Like my grandmother used to say, many a truth is told in a joke. Reid is half-joking, but the truth is that journalists would much prefer to cover a gaffe than report on a non-eventful day on the stump.

Here’s an idea: how about coming up with story ideas on your own, rather than waiting for the candidates to slip up?

Reid could tell us what the crowds are like at the Edwards events he covers. How many people are showing up? What’s the average age? More women or men? Are the people at these rallies mostly committed Edwards supporters, or are there significant numbers of undecided voters?

Alternatively, he could spend some time analyzing an issue Edwards brings up in his stump speech. How does that issue relate to the lives of Iowans in town X where Edwards is speaking? How does Edwards’ approach to that issue compare to what other candidates propose?

On any given day, Daily Kos users post numerous substantive diaries about the various presidential candidates. Some are about candidates’ stand on important issues, and some are about campaign strategy.

While Reid complains that Edwards isn’t giving him anything to write about, the Edwards Evening News Roundups are packed with information every day.

If these citizen journalists can come up with something interesting to write about, why is a CBS reporter sitting around waiting for a candidate to make a mistake?

“Gotcha” journalism does not serve voters well. Reporters following the campaigns need to figure out a better way to do their jobs.

I don’t read the Washington Times, but MyDD user Piuma noticed a piece there about El Latino, Iowa’s largest Spanish-language newspaper, endorsing Barack Obama. Here is a link to Piuma’s diary.

The El Latino editorial includes this line, which appears to be aimed at Hillary Clinton:

No other presidential candidate, particularly divisive candidates, can unite Congress and secure the votes to finally pass comprehensive immigration reform.

(I would add that it’s a fantasy to think that any presidential candidate will be able to unite Congress on any controversial issue, but that’s a matter for another post.)

In the comments below the diary, Piuma notes:

The Obama campaign has made an outreach to the Latino community and he is endorsed by Perla A., the Vice-President of Siouxland Unidad Latina, the area’s oldest and largest Latino organization, as well as City Councilmember Sara Monroy Huddleston, one of four Latino elected officials in Iowa.  This may be one of the many surprise groups Obama will turn out who have been ignored by polling.

Obama has several field offices in Iowa towns with significant Latino populations.

I have felt all year that Obama is the candidate who would benefit most from a primary rather than a caucus, because his support appears to be more concentrated in some parts of the state. However if his campaign can turn out large numbers of Latino supporters, then he could get a significant number of delegates in towns and neighborhoods where there are a lot of Latino residents.

This newspaper endorsement is a good get for Obama and has to be disappointing for Bill Richardson.

I have seen national polling suggesting that Hillary Clinton has much more support among Latinos than Obama does. Jerome Armstrong recently argued that Obama would fare poorly against John McCain among Latino voters. It will be interesting to see if Obama can win strong support among Latinos in Iowa. If so, that could help him in several of the states that will hold primaries on February 5.

Potential sleeper candidate Joe Biden picked up two more state legislator endorsements this morning.  From a Biden for President campaign release:

“Today, Sen. Joe Biden received endorsements from two key Iowa elected officials.  State Representatives Dennis Cohoon of Burlington and Eric Palmer of Oskaloosa become the 15th and 16th Iowa State legislators to endorse Sen. Biden.  

“I am supporting Sen. Biden because he’s the most prepared to be president from Day One,” said Rep. Cohoon.  “And as a high school special education teacher for thirty years, I know Sen. Biden can accomplish the education reforms we need to get kids in preschool earlier and give them the opportunity to go to college.”

Rep. Palmer stressed Sen. Biden’s experience in world affairs and his commitment to civil rights: “The Des Moines Register talked about knowledge and experience in their endorsement. To me Joe Biden exhibits real knowledge and experience in foreign affairs and his understanding of the constitution, both qualities not exhibited by this White House.  As Vice-Chair of the House Judiciary Committee, I am particularly impressed with Sen. Biden’s expertise in constitutional law, which will be critical to getting America back on track.””

Like the release says, that brings his endorsement total to 16.  And trust me, that’s a lot in the state legislator race and puts him just behind Clinton and Obama.  That bodes well for Biden in terms of organization and contacts.  State legislators have strong local connections that help them get elected in the first place.  Their opinion matters if nothing more than to help Iowans pick a solid second choice.

Now, don’t get me wrong, these endorsements aren’t going to catapult Joe Biden into the top three.  But they could help him a lot.  If any of the three front-runners do poorly in terms of rural organizing or see troubles in viability, Joe Biden could see a boost.  And with his Iraq policy and seriousness he still captures Iowans’ attention to at least listen to him.  The question is what kind of crowd will show up to the caucuses on January 3rd.

It’s obvious from the recent polling in Iowa that the top three candidates are bunched closely together. The ground game will decide the outcome on January 3.

Jerome Armstrong, founder of MyDD and “blogfather” of Daily Kos, came up with this prediction about how turnout will influence the Democratic results:

Turnout numbers        Favors

<150,000               Edwards

150-170,000            Clinton

>170,000               Obama

Basically, if it’s all the tried and true 2004 caucus goers, plus another 25% or so, that Edwards has the advantage. If it winds up being a blown out caucus that has greater than 50,000 more attendees than 2004 (most of the polls are working off this assumption), then Obama wins. If it’s somewhere in the middle, bigger than what would be usual but less than what’s being projected in the polls, then it’s basically going to be something like this poll.

Although many speculate that a record turnout would favor Obama and Clinton, I am hoping for good weather and a strong turnout on January 3. I don’t want an Edwards victory to be spun away as the result of a snowstorm.

I highly doubt turnout will exceed 150,000, though. Many regular caucus-goers will miss the caucuses this year because they’d already made vacation plans and will be out of state on January 3.

What do you think about Jerome’s prediction? And how do you think an unusually high or low turnout would affect the Republican results? I have to believe that Huckabee’s ground troops will turn out for him no matter what the weather.

As Chris Woods predicted, Tom Tancredo dropped out of the presidential race at a Thursday press conference. The Des Moines Register reports that he endorsed Romney, saying the former Massachusetts governor “is the best hope for our cause.”

The cause that vaulted the Colorado congressman into the race illegal immigration also motivated him to abandon his pursuit of the nomination, Tancredo said.

His continued presence in an election he could not win, he said, may have helped the campaigns of Gov. Mike Huckabee and Sen. John McCain candidates Tancredo says are soft on immigration.

If you want to relive some highlights from Tancredo’s Iowa campaign, check out this post by Don at Cyclone Conservatives, which includes links to previous posts he wrote after seeing Tancredo in person.

Alternatively, check out noneed4thneed’s posts at Century of the Common Iowan about Tancredo’s tv ads:

http://commoniowan.blogspot.co…

http://commoniowan.blogspot.co…

Interesting how these social conservatives are desperate not to see Huckabee win. First Sam Brownback endorsed John McCain, then Steve King went with Fred Thompson (the two campaigned together on Thursday), and now Tancredo is going with Romney.

Earlier this month, Romney started running this ad in Iowa hitting Huckabee on the immigration issue:

Incidentally, FactCheck.org found some problems with that ad.

I found this short anti-Huckabee YouTube focusing on immigration:

Now Huckabee is touting his own immigration plan on the stump in Iowa. Will he be able to withstand attacks from so many rivals? I’m betting he will as long as the anti-Huckabee forces are divided among several candidates.

Incidentally, a college student I know who interned for Brownback’s campaign this summer and is now volunteering for McCain says the mood is VERY upbeat at McCain’s Iowa HQ.

We’re officially two weeks out from the Iowa Caucuses now and it is anyone’s guess as to what is going to happen.  We’ve got a variety of polls that say John Edwards might be leading, might not be if you look at the other numbers from the same poll, ABC News/Washington Post says Obama leads, and CNN/Opinion Research Corp. says that it is basically a three-way tie.

In the end it is important to remember, as Jerome says, polling in Iowa is bizarre.  Iowans are fickle, we stay undecided for a long time, and our second choices matter.  But keep in mind the Insider Advantage polling is worth concern simply because of some mathematical and statistical issues.

And finally, as we get closer to the Caucuses, you’re going to be seeing a bunch more ads.  Below the fold are the two new ads from Chris Dodd and Joe Biden.

I’m not sure why this story wasn’t reported more or that no one was really covering this event, but it looks like Iowa Secretary of State Mike Mauro has endorsed Hillary Clinton.

“Mauro made his announcement Wednesday at an event in Des Moines, according to a Clinton campaign statement. He says the New York senator stands out among the other candidates and doesn’t have a “learning curve.”

Mauro says no one is more qualified or ready to lead than Clinton.”

This isn’t that big of a deal for Clinton’s campaign, but it is worthwhile to note that Clinton now has an elected statewide Democrat supporting her candidacy.

That means that Gov. Culver and Lt. Gov. Patty Judge are the only statewide elected Democrats not endorsing someone.  Iowa State Treasurer Mike Fitzgerald and Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller have endorsed Barack Obama.

I’m not sure if there are any other major Iowa endorsements left, but things are really beginning to get locked up now.  Two weeks out and we’re down to the field game.  

I’m tired of reading comments like this piece by Des Moines Register columnist John Carlson. Look how he mocks staffers for presidential candidates, who are just doing their jobs:

Campaign staffers, invariably Democrats, call my house every night. I haven’t a clue why they’re calling me. I’m registered independent. I’ve never caucused for a candidate in either party.

Typical conversation:

Do you have any questions about the caucuses?

Not really.

Am I going to caucus?

I dunno, I doubt it.

Do I have any questions about their candidate?

No.

If I did attend a caucus, would I consider their candidate?

I give them an audible shrug. Maybe.

They want to make the sale, but not push too hard. I say nothing more and they take the hint, thank me and hang up.

The truth is, newspaper policy prohibits me from caucusing. I just want to hear what they have to say, and for a while I egged them on.

Look, why doesn’t he just tell them he can’t caucus because of his job at the Register? Why is he making fun of people for calling him, even though he’s a registered independent who hasn’t caucused? Aren’t we supposed to want more participation in the caucuses, so the results have more legitimacy?

I’m also tired of letters to the editor like these ones recently published in the Register.

One letter complains about the frequent phone calls asking their opinions about the race. What’s wrong with polling firms trying to assess the state of the race here? What’s wrong with campaigns trying to identify their supporters?

Two letters complain about political ads on tv. At our house we usually keep the tv turned off, so this isn’t a problem for us. But are the political ads really more offensive than the ads for all kinds of other products viewers are bombarded with every day of the year?

One letter complains about a robocall for Obama by the lady who scuplts the butter cows at the Iowa State Fair. If his campaign thinks people will be influenced by her opinion, what’s wrong with them putting it out there?

One letter complains about the 80-page policy book the Edwards campaign has mailed to some Iowans. Why criticize him for trying to inform potential caucus-goers about more details on policy matters than newspapers have provided? Why blame him for giving Iowans more substance than can fit into a 30-second tv ad? A lot of people I know were glad to get that book in the mail or from a canvasser.

I’m tired of comments like this one that user JSN recently posted at the political blog MyDD:

Evidently 40% of those polled hang up (I am one of them) and we are getting called frequently. Under those circumstances all you can do is average as many polls as possible and hope for the best.

Early on I was called four times in one day. I have friends who have been called twice in a day. In the past week my wife and I have been called five times. In addition we get a giant post card a day from Edwards (after the third card he moved from second choice to 13th).

A long time ago in a galaxy far away it used to be fun to caucus in Iowa. It has not been fun for quite  awhile. We are all looking foreword to Jan 4th when all of the candidates, campaign staff and reporters leave Iowa.

Well, speak for yourself, JSN. Would you rather live in a state that had no influence on the process? Millions of Americans would love to be able to participate in selecting our president. My husband grew up in New Jersey, where the late primary meant they never got any candidate visits until the whole thing was wrapped up.

I don’t mind answering a few pollsters’ questions, and I don’t mind getting some knocks at the door from people trying to engage me in the process.

I also find it fun to meet my Democratic neighbors at the caucuses, even though I have criticized the caucus system in some of my diaries about the process.

As a precinct captain, one question I struggle with is how many times can I contact an undecided caucus-goer without making them angry and therefore less likely to support my candidate. I was struck by this part of a recent article by Roger Simon:

John Norris, who was Kerry’s Iowa director in 2004 and is now an Obama volunteer, thinks any campaigning that matters will end about Dec. 20, which is why the ground game is reaching a fever pitch right now.

Norris talks about a woman who supported Edwards in 2004 but who is now supporting Obama. Why?

“Because an Edwards volunteer only knocked on her door once and we knocked on her door several times,” Norris says.

I have huge respect for John Norris. As a precinct captain for Kerry, I remember how he held that campaign together during the fall of 2003, in the face of so many bad opinion polls.

But I would be afraid to knock on any particular voter’s door too many times, even if I had unlimited time for voter contacts in my precinct. It seems more likely than not that people would start griping about the Edwards precinct captain who kept bothering them.

Upon hearing that the Obama campaign is calling known supporters every three weeks to check on them, Nate Willems, who was a regional director for Howard Dean in Iowa, had this to say:

A late 2003 Dean focus group produced the comment from a participant, “I’d give anything for those Dean people to just quit calling me.”

I find it sad that Iowans, who are privileged to lead the nation in selecting a president, can be so quick to criticize people who are just trying to drum up support for a candidate they believe in.

I appreciate the efforts of all the candidates’ volunteers and staffers. So what if I get a few extra phone calls? It will be over soon enough on January 4.

I can’t say I’m going to miss his racist remarks about immigrants and his fear-mongering.  From the Des Moines Register:

“Republican presidential candidate Tom Tancredo has scheduled a 2 p.m. press conference on Thursday to make a “major announcement.”

Tancredo, a Colorado congressman, has no other campaign events scheduled in Iowa after tomorrow’s announcement, said Alan Moore, Tancredo’s press secretary.”

My bet is that he drops out.  Good riddance.

This morning, the Iowa City Press-Citizen endorsed Barack Obama for president.  They wrote:

“Obama has the right vision for a new national politics and a new global reputation. He now needs voters and supporters who will help him transform that vision into reality. It’s a transformation that should have started three years ago. Neither the nation nor the world can wait any longer.”

It is a pretty well-written endorsement which also highlights the positives of the other Democratic candidates and specifically looks at restoring America’s image abroad and here at home.

While I disagree with their analysis on Obama’s healthcare proposal, I think that discussion of the issue is an important step to truly making universal healthcare a priority point of discussion in American politics.

On the Republican side, with only two Republican candidate visits to Johnson County’s paper of record, the editorial staff went with Mike Huckabee over Ron Paul.

They say that a great political ad gets the message across even if you watch it with the sound turned down. Check out the bookshelf that looks like a white cross in the background behind Huckabee as he wishes us all a merry Christmas:

(hat tip to Don at Cyclone Conservatives)

As we’ve noted, Hillary Clinton received the endorsement of the Des Moines Register over the weekend, and Congressman Leonard Boswell backed her last week.

The Des Moines Register reported on Monday that Congressman Dave Loebsack will endorse Barack Obama:

http://www.desmoinesregister.c…

“We’re incredibly fortunate this year to have this field of candidates,” Loebsack said in a telephone interview. “There is one candidate who stands out and that’s why I’m backing Obama.

[…]

“I think we’ve got to have a leader who can bring all Americans together for a single purpose,” said Loebsack.

Congressman Bruce Braley recently endorsed John Edwards, and now he has been joined by Iowa’s first lady, Mari Culver:

http://www.desmoinesregister.c…

“I think John is a winner. He’s electable,” she said. “He’s been tested. He’s been on the national ticket before. The national polls show him beating all Republicans in the general elections. He inspires me. I think he inspires other Iowans, and I think he can really rally Americans in the fall.”

In that article, Mari Culver confirms that Governor Culver does not plan to endorse a candidate. Senator Tom Harkin has also said he doesn’t plan to endorse this time (his wife, Ruth Harkin, has campaigned for Hillary).

Anyone else know of any possible endorsements coming down the pike? How about the other major newspapers in Iowa?

They are revealing.

Looking at this piece by the editorial page editor, Carol Hunter, you can see that even they feel a little guilty that they didn’t endorse Biden:

http://www.desmoinesregister.c…

Also, this piece on “rating the other candidates” has some fascinating passages:

http://www.desmoinesregister.c…

It’s clear that they almost went with Biden:

Even in our last major round of deliberations, we kept coming back to the question, “Why not Joe Biden?”

Many of the arguments we have made on behalf of the tested leadership of Sens. Hillary Clinton and John McCain apply to Biden as well. He knows how to get legislation passed. He, too, has deep foreign-policy expertise. We’re inspired by his fierce defense of civil liberties. His work on legislation to combat domestic violence has no doubt prevented injuries and saved lives. He might, indeed, make a good president.

But spending virtually his entire adult life in the Senate also makes his experience somewhat narrower than that of some other candidates. And in making sometimes slim distinctions in this talented bunch, we see his well-known loquaciousness as a weakness. It reflects a certain lack of discipline, and it’s gotten him into trouble on occasion with ill-considered remarks related to race. (We do, however, wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment expressed uniformly by his campaign rivals that his heart is in the right place.)

It’s also clear that they don’t disagree with Edwards on anything of substance:

We still believe he’s right about two Americas, the one for people who have everything they need and the one for people who struggle to get by. He’s right about the stagnation of middle-class wages. He’s right that the tax system and overall economic policy have become too tilted toward the affluent, making it virtually impossible for poor and middle-class families to get ahead.

He’s right that the baby-boomer generation risks breaking the “one moral commandment” of Americans: “To give our children a better future than we received.”

Edwards is most persuasive when he appeals to America’s goodness to do better by the vulnerable among us, as he did in last week’s Register Democratic debate:

“…Somewhere in America tonight, a child will go to bed hungry. Somewhere in America tonight, a family will have to go to the emergency room and beg for health care for a sick child. …Somewhere in America today, a father who’s worked for 30 or 40 years to support his family will lose his job. That’s what’s at stake in this election. What’s not at stake are any of us. All of us are going to be just fine, no matter what happens in this election. What’s at stake is whether America is going to be fine.”

Edwards has set the ambitious goal of eliminating poverty in a generation. He’s developed creative proposals to help families save and make college more affordable. (Other Democrats have outlined similar plans.) Edwards or whoever is the party’s standard-bearer should work to take those plans to the White House.

The question on Edwards is whether a self-described fighter for change, who wants to “cast aside the bankrupt ways of Washington,” can get results in Washington. For someone trying to reunite the two Americas, would he be too divisive a figure?

This part of their analysis on Barack Obama also tells you a lot about the people on the Register editorial board:

One board member described the case for Obama in the Clinton vs. Obama discussion as a bank shot versus a straight shot in pool. Success is less certain with a bank shot, but the gamble (in this case for a more cohesive, hopeful country) might be worth it.

Another veteran editorial writer described the choice as similar to picking Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a calculating but masterful politician at maneuvering needed legislation through Congress, versus John F. Kennedy, whose youthful vigor inspired the nation to take on new challenges. That’s not a bad choice.

This endorsement shows how risk-averse the Register editors are. They were worried about a few gaffes Biden has made (as if Clinton doesn’t have 10 times as much baggage). They didn’t want someone who would antagonize corporate interests like Edwards, even though they can’t point to anything he’s wrong about. And they think Obama would be too big of a gamble.

They also fondly remember FDR for his “calculating” skills at maneuvering legislation through Congress.

Although I don’t doubt FDR’s talents in this area, I think of him first and foremost as someone who had tremendous vision. He didn’t shy away from proposing huge changes to deal with the crises of the day, even if they were a gamble, and even if they risked upsetting the powerful corporate interests of his day.

Also, FDR was a very combative and partisan president. He did his best to pin every economic failure onto the Republican Party, and his presidency succeeded in realigning American voters for a generation.

That’s very different from the Register’s praise of Hillary’s legislative skills in reaching across the aisle.

Just wanted to bring this piece to your attention.