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?

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.

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?

As an Edwards fan of sorts (he's my second choice), I wouldn't be crushed if he won the caucus.  I'm not trolling here by any means, or looking for a fight, but I pose this as a serious question in search of an answer to our party's potential nominee.

I'm sure this question has been answered before, but maybe some Edwards supporters can clarify this for me here. 

How will it possible for him to: 1) Beat Hillary (or Obama) in other states with only $17 mil to spend until the convention, and 2) defend himself with negligable funds after the primary season is over from attacks? 

I only ask this, because I really wish that Edwards had foregone federal matching funds and just opened up his deep wallet, sold his house, etc., for this campaign.  Perhaps with his recent fundraising prowess, he could have remained competetive with Obama or Hillary through fundraising rather than relying on public funds.

This will be the final installment of my “Obama: The Only Thing You Need to Know” series, which will also be my “closing argument”.  For what it's worth, I've been for an Obama presidency since 2004.  

To me, it didn't matter when, or where, or how it happened.  When you see a brilliant, inspiring man with real integrity and progressive ideals have a shot at the Presidency, it is my belief that you jump in head first and do everything you possibly can to make him the next President of the United States.

But where did this man come from?  I was determined to find out..

(Cross-Posted at DailyKos and Blue Hampshire) 

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?  

As Bill Nye the Science Guy used to say, consider the following:

How would it affect the national race for the nomination were we to have three different winners in the big three early contests?

Consider the following scenario. In the Iowa caucus, John Edwards wins a squeaker of a contest, coming in first over Clinton and Obama–who pull down second and third respectively. The win is a major boost to the Edwards campaign, which gets a boon of positive press coverage and a donor rush. While seen as somewhat of a loss for the Clinton campaign, the press deems Obama the biggest loser of the night for his lackluster third place finish.

Iowa: Edwards

Going into New Hampshire, Edwards sees a small bump of supporters, a large amount of who are Obama defectors and fence sitters. It's not enough to put Edwards up over Obama, but it's enough to give the lead solidly to Clinton. On primary night, it's Clinton who wins a close contest, with Obama second and Edwards a very close third. 

New Hampshire: Clinton

Post New Hampshire, Clinton wins contests in Nevada and Michigan–but neither is the convincing victory the campaign needs and both are largely ignored by the media.

The media and the campaigns place a huge emphasis on South Carolina, looking to crown a winner before Super Tuesday. Obama has spent most of his time post-New Hampshire campaigning in South Carolina, including a few high profile events with Oprah. Edwards has also drawn on resources in his home state of North Carolina and spent a lot of time in the state, while Hillary has been in Nevada. When all is said and done, Obama wins a decisive victory, with Edwards coming in second and Clinton a close third.

South Carolina: Obama

Thus going into Florida and Super Tuesday it's a three way race. Clinton may have the lead on delegates, but that could all change. Not only have the big three early contests all gone to different candidates…but each has come in first once, second once, and last once. 

Nomination: ???

Do you think such a scenario is possible? How would it affect the national race to have the big three early contests (Iowa, NH and SC) go to three different candidates? By having three viable, energized candidates going into Super Tuesday could the stage be set for a convention fight the likes of which we haven't seen for decades? What do you think?

Please bear in mind that this is just a imaginary scenario, not a prediction.

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.

Barack Obama has won the support of UAW Local #893 in Marshalltown, which includes 3,000 members and retirees.

Dennis Stewart, President of UAW Local #893 in Marshalltown, had this to say…

The Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs have been in charge for too long. This week, here in Iowa , their desperate attempt to control the political process is all over our televisions. Now more than ever before, working families know Barack Obama is the only candidate in this race who’s not getting any help in Iowa from Washington lobbyists, special interest PACs, or the shadowy outside organizations known as 527s. That’s why working families can trust Barack to change Washington , tell the truth and win in 2008.

This is big news for Obama in Marshall County. Chet Culver had the support of the UAW in the 2006 Democratic Primary for Governor and Culver won over 50% of the vote in Marshall County with the help of the UAW. Obama had already built strong support in the county and this might just push him to victory in Marshall County on January 3rd.

cross-posted at Daily Kos and MyDD

A few weeks ago I wrote a diary on where the Democratic presidential candidates have field offices in Iowa.

My purpose was to document the information so that after January 3, we can see whether campaigns with the most field offices did better in the counties where rivals had field organizers and volunteers working without the visibility of an office.

I am publishing a new version of this diary because several campaigns have added more field offices this month. Also, someone at the Iowa Democratic Party informed me of slight adjustments to the number of state delegates awarded by a handful of counties.

More information than you probably wanted to know is after the jump.

Earlier today someone called asking for my husband (mispronouncing his name). I offered to take a message, and she said she'd call back later.

She called back during dinner. We took the call, and once he realized what kind of poll it was, my husband put it on speakerphone so that I could listen.

After the jump I've put the questions as closely as we can remember them.

Yet despite these differences, most experts agree that the plans are similar in their most striking elements. Both Clinton and Obama advocate creating a new federal group insurance program. Anyone happy with their current health insurance could keep it. Otherwise, they could join the national insurance pool, which, the candidates like to point out, offers the same benefits that members of Congress enjoy. Edwards has a similar national public insurance plan, but would also create regional pools of private insurance companies, increasing the number of choices available.

Seddon Savage, president of the New Hampshire Medical Society, noted that all three plans believe health care should be part of the “social contract of society.” All three emphasize cost controls and cost savings, and focus on disease prevention.

“The details of the programs have some minor and some significant differences, but what all the plans are trying to do is set a direction, set basic principles,” she said. “I suspect if any one of these candidates is elected, we'll have a commitment to addressing these issues. We'll have a national dialogue, and details may change.”

John Thyng, campaign director for the advocacy group New Hampshire for Health Care, said with the exception of the mandate, the three plans are virtually the same.

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID…

 

Robert Reich and others state that mandates will not ensure universal coverage, that at least 15% will still be uninsured becasue they cannot afford it.

in my view Obama’s would insure more people, not fewer, than HRC’s. That’s because Obama’s puts more money up front and contains sufficient subsidies to insure everyone who’s likely to need help – including all children and young adults up to 25 years old. Hers requires that everyone insure themselves.

Yet we know from experience with mandated auto insurance – and we’re learning from what’s happening in Massachusetts where health insurance is now being mandated – that mandates still leave out a lot of people at the lower end who can’t afford to insure themselves even when they’re required to do so.

HRC doesn’t indicate how she’d enforce her mandate, and I can’t find enough money in HRC’s plan to help all those who won’t be able to afford to buy it.

I’m also impressed by the up-front investments in information technology in O’s plan, and the reinsurance mechanism for coping with the costs of catastrophic illness. HRC is far less specific on both counts. In short: They’re both advances, but O’s is the better of the two. HRC has no grounds for alleging that O’s would leave out 15 million people.”

One aspect of the healthcare debate that has divided Democratic candidates is whether individuals should be required to purchase coverage – Clinton and Edwards favor a mandate, while Obama does not. A slight majority of Democratic voters who were polled – including pluralities of Clinton and Edwards supporters – opposed such a requirement.

Opposition to the notion of an individual health insurance mandate — “should individuals be required to buy health insurance” — is greatest among the less well-educated and downscale voters that are the core of Clinton's base in New Hampshire and elsewhere.

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2007/1…

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.

A fun Christmas card from Obama supporters in New Jersey, wishing you all the best and thanking you for all your hard work.  Posted on YouTube by AkinScribe5:

Merry Christmas everyone! 

We elected a Democratic Congress to stop the war, and it's not happening.  I regret very much that those senators running for president weren't even there to cast their vote, they were out campaigning.  We gave the president $70 billion more to continue this war without any restraint or timetable to reduce the troops – it's basically a blank check.

That's what Bill Richardson said yesterday in New Hampshire.

Will Clinton, Edwards or Obama promptly bring the U.S. occupation of Iraq to end?  None of them have made an iron clad promise to bring our troops home.  Instead, all want to keep their options open and refuse to pledge to bring home all U.S. troops from Iraq by 2013. 

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.

This week I've been doing / will be doing a series of diaries entitled Obama: The Only Thing You Need to Know (Yes, the irony is apparent).  Two days ago, this started with the first diary on Barack Obama's time as a constitutional law senior lecturer at the University of Chicago, entitled Obama: The Only Thing You Need to Know.  It was so successful that yesterday I followed up with a diary on his time as a civil rights lawyer, entitled Obama: The Only Thing You Need to Know, Part 2.

I know everyone is waiting for the diary on community organizing, but today I chose to focus on an area of Barack Obama's experience that often gets overlooked, and ironically may have helped Bill Clinton win the election in 1992.  I'm of course talking about when Barack spearheaded Project Vote! on the eve of the 1992 election, with “George Bush gaining ground in Illinois” and “Carol Moseley Braun embroiled in allegations about her mother's Medicare liability”.

Barack Obama will be discussing foreign policy with four of his foreign policy advisors tomorrow at the Holiday Inn Conference Center at the Des Moines airport.

 http://iowa.barackobama.com/page/event/detail/officialevent/4vlcm

This should be a good opportunity for him to separate further from the Hillary camp on foreign policy issues and articulate why he has the political and life experience necessary to be the next President of the United States.

I may be posting in my diary from this event.  It depends if I can get a ride into Des Moines, otherwise I will just comment on what I read about it. 

Yesterday, I did a piece entitled Obama: The Only Thing You Need to Know.  It was a big success, and everyone seemed to like taking a focus on the constitutional law aspect of Obama's career. 

Today, I've decided to take out my looking glass again and focus it on Obama's time as a civil rights attorney.  At a time when our civil rights are being taken for granted by the government that is sworn to protect them, it would be nice to have a President who has defended them in court.

“[Miner Barnhill & Galland]'s a real do-good firm,” says Fay Clayton, lead counsel for the National Organization for Women in a landmark lawsuit aimed at stopping abortion clinic violence. “Barack and that firm were a perfect fit. He wasn't going to make as much money there as he would at a LaSalle Street firm or in New York, but money was never Barack's first priority anyway.”

– http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar…

A few more examples beneath the fold…

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?

At a time when our constitution is in such crisis, the symptoms of which can be seen in every aspect of our politics and our government, there is one quote that sticks out to me above all others:

“I don't know if we have had a president that knows as much about the founding document as he does.” – Professor Cass Sunstein, University of Chicago

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politic…

Kind of looks like the thinking man to me.

More thoughts below…

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.

A new Research 2000 poll for the Quad-City Times shows Barack Obama with a 9-point lead over Hillary Clinton and John Edwards.  Here are the overall results (500 likely caucus-goers with a margin of error of +/- 4.5%):

Barack Obama 33%

Hillary Clinton 24%

John Edwards 24%

Bill Richardson 9%

Joe Biden 3%

Chris Dodd 1%

Dennis Kucinich 1%

It is still clearly a three-person race, with the slight advantage to Obama.  To me, this is the key result from the poll:

“The poll also indicated an unsettled electorate, with 23 percent of Democrats and 34 percent of Republicans saying they were likely or very likely to change their minds before the caucuses. Only a third of Democrats, 33 percent, and just more than a quarter of Republicans, 27 percent, said they were not at all likely to change their minds. The rest, 44 percent on the Democratic side and 39 percent on the Republican side, said they are not very likely to change.”

The race is still quite fluid and second choices are definitely going to matter come caucus night when some candidate preference groups won’t be able to get viability.

You can get the full PDF of the results from Research 2000 here.  They’re usually a pretty reliable polling firm when it comes to general election or primary polling, but I don’t know where they’re at in terms of accuracy for polling the caucuses.

Does this mean Edwards can still win the Iowa caucuses?  I think so.  And Mike Lux at Open Left says we should keep our eyes on him.

In his column for the Des Moines Register on Tuesday, David Yepsen repeated assertions he made on his blog not long ago, implying that the Obama campaign is somehow not playing fair because they are encouraging students at Iowa colleges to return to campus for the January 3 caucuses.

As I’ve written before, the right of students at Iowa colleges to caucus is well-established.

Mike Connery goes into more detail about why Yepsen is wrong here. He notes that several rival campaigns have jumped at the chance to imply Obama is cheating in Iowa. I am proud that the Edwards campaign is NOT among those.

The Iowa caucuses should never have been scheduled so early, while colleges are on winter break. I encourage all of the campaigns to identify their student supporters. Why shouldn’t students come back to their campuses for caucus night?

I’m disappointed that the Register would seem to endorse the idea that it is illegitimate for students enrolled at Iowa colleges to caucus.

The Edwards campaign announced today that they have opened 10 new field offices in Iowa in recent weeks. I have updated my diary on Where the Iowa field offices are accordingly.

As of today, 42 Iowa counties have at least one field office for a Democratic presidential candidate. The current tally of Iowa field offices is:

Barack Obama 37 (includes two in Des Moines)

Hillary Clinton 34 (includes two in Dubuque and two in Cedar Rapids)

John Edwards 25

Bill Richardson 16

Chris Dodd 13

Joe Biden 9 (with possibly two more to be added)

Click the link if you want more detailed information.

Google Trends is a neat little tool created by Google to chart how popular a search term has been over a given length of time–in the standard search, it's a few years' time. The tool then links spikes in search volume to news stories that came out about the time of the spike in public interest in the term. It also tells the top three cities where people are looking for this term. I ran the full names of the top democratic candidates through this tool and I'll share the results with you in no particular order.

Check it out for yourself:  http://www.google.com/trends

“Hillary Clinton”:
Peaked: Jan 21, 2007
Story: Entered 2008 race
Trending: flat for most of 2007, up since August
Top Three Cities: Washington DC; New York, NY; Boston, MA

“Barack Obama”:
Peaked: July 27, 2004
Story: 2004 Convention Speech
Trending: flat for most of 2007, up sharply this last week
Top Three Cities: Chicago, IL; Washington DC; Austin, TX 

“John Edwards”: 
Peaked:  July 6,2004
Story: Picked as Kerry's running mate
Trending:  Flat
Top Three Cities: Raleigh, NC; Washington DC; Boston, MA

“Bill Richardson”: 
Peaked: Jan 21, 2007
Story: Entered 2008 race
Trending: Flat
Top Three Cities: Santa Fe, NM; Albuquerque, NM; Washington DC

“Joe Biden”:
Peaked: Jan 31, 2007
Story: Entered Race/made controversial comments
Trending: up sharply since August
Top Three Cities: Washington DC; Reston, VA; Philadelphia, PA

“Chris Dodd”:
Peaked: sometime in October 2007
Story: Unknown
Trending: up for the year, down since October's inexplicable peak
Top Three Cities: Meriden, CT; Hartford, CT; Des Moines, IA

For the record, can anyone explain why Dodd would have seen a spike in searches for his name around late October? 

Obama supporter “worldtrippers” put up this fun diary at Daily Kos yesterday comparing the top three candidates’ caucus-training videos:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/…

Click the link to read the diary and view all three videos, which are embedded there.

What do you think? Do you agree with worldtrippers’ analysis?

It is still a tight race on the Democratic side between Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Barack Obama, while on the Republican side Mike Huckabee has surged past Mitt Romney to take a commanding lead in Iowa according to the latest Newsweek Iowa Caucus polling released this afternoon.

Here are the Democratic results among likely caucus-goers, with all Democrats polled in parentheses (Republicans are below the fold):

Barack Obama 35% (29%)

Hillary Clinton 29% (30%)

John Edwards 18% (21%)

Bill Richardson 9% (11%)

Joe Biden 4% (2%)

Dennis Kucinich * (1%)

Chris Dodd * (*)

Other candidate 0% (0%)

Undecided 5% (6%)

Only 395 were identified as likely caucus-goers, meaning that the margin of error among those likely caucus-goers is +/-6%.  If you take the MOE for all 673 polled, it is still +/-5%.  Clearly, Obama comes across as the front-runner from the looks of the polls, with Edwards still hanging out.  I’d say that the polling doesn’t accurately reflect Edwards’ stance all that much and we all know that his 2004 infrastructure is still largely in place giving him quite the advantage in that arena.

A couple of things to take from the results.  First of all, it looks like contrary to popular belief Barack Obama may be doing better with those who are already more likely to attend their precinct caucus.  Thus, expanding the universe of potential caucus-goers for Obama might actually be more detrimental.  Same goes for Joe Biden.  However, when you include all of those Democrats polled Clinton, Edwards, and Richardson all gain.  To me that means: a) Obama has more committed supporters ready to say they’re going to caucus, or b) Obama’s support in the so-called “expansion universe” of potential caucus-goers isn’t as strong as the conventional wisdom says.  These are both assumptions on my part and there is always room for other interpretation, but that’s what I’m seeing here.

The second specific point about the poll was that they polled second choices as well, which Bleeding Heartland reader RF noted earlier this week in a comment.  These totals are going to add to more than 100%, but here are the net first/second choice support totals for the candidates, with likely caucus-goers as the first number and all Democrats polled in parentheses:

Barack Obama 55% (50%)

Hillary Clinton 50% (51)

John Edwards 45% (44%)

Bill Richardson 16% (17%)

Joe Biden 11% (8%)

Chris Dodd 2% (1%)

Dennis Kucinich * (1%)

Other candidate * (*)

Undecided 5% (6%)

Again, to me this confirms that the race in Iowa is still a strong three-way race between Clinton, Edwards, and Obama.  The gap in first/second choice support is only 10% among likely caucus-goers (and 7% among the rest of Democrats) while there is a 17% gap among likely’s in first choice and 9% among all Democrats.  Things are still tightly wound among Iowa Democrats.

You can see the full poll results here in PDF form courtesy of Newsweek.  Their story on the poll is here.

cross-posted at MyDD and Daily Kos

I decided to write this diary when I learned that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton each have more than 30 field offices in Iowa.

After January 3, we will see whether campaigns with the most field offices did better in the counties where rivals had field organizers and volunteers working without the visibility of an office.

More information than you probably wanted to know is after the jump.

I have listed the counties in descending order, based on the number of state delegates they will assign on the Democratic side. I took the numbers from this post by Drew Miller, who calculated how many state delegates each Iowa county would contribute to the 2,500 total. [UPDATE: I corrected the delegate totals for a few counties after hearing from Drew Miller.]

I also give the 2004 caucus results for each county. Those numbers come from this table on the Des Moines Register’s website. The results reflect the percentage of county delegates assigned to the various presidential candidates (not the percentage of raw votes each one received in the county).  

John Deeth posted an update on legislative endorsements, along with a helpful chart showing which candidates Iowa Democratic legislators endorsed in 2004, and which counties the legislators represent.

The latest tally is Clinton 19, Obama 18, Biden 14, Edwards 10, Dodd 3 and Richardson 1. 

Deeth's chart also shows who has yet to endorse, and who those legislators backed (if anyone) four years ago. 

I listened to most of the NPR debate this afternoon. Although I am usually more interested in hearing the candidates debate domestic policy, I thought it was good for NPR to go in depth on a few foreign-policy issues. The questions were solid and substantive, and the candidates had to go beyond their usual sound-bite answers on Iran, China and immigration policy.

It’s too bad Richardson couldn’t make it because of a funeral he was attending, because the format probably would have suited him. I have heard him answer questions on immigration, and he makes a strong case on that issue.

I thought Edwards, Obama, Clinton, Biden and Dodd all did pretty well.

If you listened to the debate, what did you think?

Mark Halperin’s post-debate scorecard is here:

http://thepage.time.com/excerp…

Dear Iowa (And America),

I am sitting here on my computer in thinking of you. It may sound ridiculous because I’m only 14, but I care more about you and everything you do than anything else in the world. You are not an average state but I can’t change who you are and that’s why you’re so important to me. You see, you have a very important decision to make by January 3rd about a very special someone. I can beg with you and plead with you but in the end it’s up to you. You are getting tremendous pressure from all sides but let me just make a plea to you to pick the right special someone. I am talking of course about the next President of the United States.

Give me a chance.

Time's annual "Person of the Year" issue is coming out soon, and I thought I'd offer my thoughts on who it could be. They have a nine-person pool up for "your vote", but I thought I'd go beyond that.  And I do think it'll be an actual person this time. Here are my odds for who will be named Time's "Person of the Year":

1-1 Al Gore: It's been a great year for Al. Between Live Earth, the Oscar, and the Nobel, he's been everywhere. Not to mention that giving him the honor on would be a snub to President Bush…(who's been awarded twice). Gore would seem the obvious choice.

3-1 Barack Obama Considering his meteoric rise, he's the big story out of American politics this year. His very candidacy has forced America to ask some very profound questions about ourselves as a country and a people. Could he be the new face of America? Yet he still trails in the polls, and Time may want to wait and see what he does in the future.

5-1 Hillary Clinton Like it or not, she's set the tone of the 2008 Election so far. She's the leader of the pack, for now and is a global figure. Yet Time may want to wait. Just like Obama though, if she wins the presidency she'll get the award for sure. And if she does turn out to be the Howard Dean of 2008…they'd look pretty foolish.

10-1 Nicolas Sarkozy The figurehead of Europe's swing to the right, he singlehandedly rebuilt the trans-Atlantic alliance. Time might like to select a world leader and Sarkozy certainly stands out in that area. However, has he had enough global impact to make the cut?

15-1 Steve Jobs As the Time page says, the iPhone was a hit, the iPod has changed the way we live, and Apple stock is up 100% for the year. The Mac Attack is back, but with business in general in a slump, will Time want to celebrate a captain of industry?

25-1 Mahmoud Ahmadinejad This dastardly dictator has certainly made waves in the world this year, and it's worth remembering that Stalin and Hitler both made the cut. But scowling Iranians don't sell magazines. (Or as Stephen Colbert would say Mahmoud Ahmagonnagetajob.

100-1 J.K. Rowling Seriously. Wars across the world, political battles at home, the Al Gore behemoth, and she gets the nod?! Still, Time has made some off the wall choices before. 

Who do you think it will be? Is there some figure I've overlooked? Let's hear your thoughts!

Oprah will travel to Iowa to campaign for Barack Obama, and his campaign has come up with a counter-intuitive way of doling out tickets that is either brilliant or foolish:

In a news release announcing the events, Obama's campaign said tickets to the Iowa events will be given first to precinct captains, then campaign volunteers, then to supporters and undecided caucus-goers.

 

It said volunteers can be guaranteed a ticket by completing a four-hour volunteer shift or attending local caucus training before the event.

I would never have thought to do this. When a big event for John Edwards is planned, I try to get as many undecided voters from my precinct to attend as possible. I figure, it's more helpful to put undecided voters at an exciting event than it is to pack the room with supporters.

Obama's campaign seems to have calculated that if they can get hundreds of supporters to step up their involvement by becoming precinct captains or volunteering for at least four hours, that will eventually bring in more caucus-goers than they would win over by putting several hundred undecided voters in front of Oprah.

On the other hand, isn't the whole point of Oprah's visit to excite and win over women who may not ordinarily be engaged in politics? Maybe having her address a roomful of fired-up Obama volunteers is not the best use of her star power.

What do you think–brilliant or foolish? 

UDPATE: Tom in the comments says volunteers will get preferred seating, but that others will be able to attend Oprah's events in Iowa too. 

I think Barack Obama made a mistake earlier this year by proposing a health care plan that was less than universal. First Edwards and later Clinton outflanked him on that issue with proposals that would cover every American.

So speaking to voters in Council Bluffs, Obama made the case against mandatory health care insurance:

Health care insurance should not become a government mandate, Barack Obama said here today, referencing plans posed by John Edwards and Hillary Clinton.

Obama said such mandates for health care coverage is a wrong step. He told a crowd of about 350 people at Thomas Jefferson High School that his plan would lower costs on average by about $2,500 per family, making health care affordable for all without placing demands.

He compared Clinton and Edwards’ proposed mandates to car insurance, noting that some states with required auto insurance still have a pocket of 15 or more percent that still go without coverage even though it’s illegal.

“Their essential argument is the only way to get everybody covered is if the government forces you to buy health insurance. If you don’t buy it, then you’ll be penalized in some way,” Obama said. “What I have said repeatedly is that the reason people don’t have health insurance isn’t because they don’t want it, it’s because they can’t afford it.”

Of course many of the uninsured cannot afford coverage now, but many are currently uninsurable, which would change with better regulation of insurance companies and more options for the public (such as letting people buy into a public plan).

Also, the Edwards and Clinton plans include many things that would lower premium costs, making it easier for more people to afford coverage.

The experts on health care policy say you need mandates to get everyone covered. But even leaving that aside, Obama ignores the fact that the president has to set the bar very high in terms of what he asks Congress to pass.

Maybe a comprehensive universal health care plan would not pass during the first year of the next administration. But you don't take the compromise that you might need to settle for and make that your starting offer to Congress.

I have written about this before. My biggest concern about Obama as potential president is that in his desire to appear post-partisan and conciliatory, he would give half the game away before negotiations with the other side begin.

If Obama won't even submit a universal plan to Congress, then what he would get out of Congress would be even less than what he is advocating.

Now, the conservative New Hampshire Union Leader newspaper has praised Obama's health care plan as “a smaller pill to swallow” (hat tip to MyDD user “silver spring,” a Clinton supporter). Of course, conservatives would prefer not to do anything to expand health care coverage. If I'm running for president in the Democratic primary, I don't think I want Republicans praising my health care plan because it does less than other Democrats' plans.

UPDATE: Ezra Klein, one of the blogosphere's leading wonks on health care policy, weighs in on “Obama's excuse”.

Hillary Clinton had a chance to do one of two things on the Peru Free Trade Agreement. She could announce her opposition to the proposal, or she could do what Wall Street demanded.

CLINTON ON TRADE: I’M AS AWFUL AS OBAMA…

Clinton went with Wall Street. On the same day that a majority of House Democrats voted against the Peru FTA, the senator from New York endorsed the current economic-policy priority of the Bush administration.

In so doing, Clinton confirmed that the only thing more important to her than securing her lead in the race for the Democratic nod is keeping the likely financiers of her fall campaign happy, and Clinton joined Illinois Senator Obama in supporting the trade deal.

Edwards opposes! 
 

Bill Richardson is goal-oriented, assertive and confident.  He has served as a Congressman, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Secretary of Energy and is in his second term as Governor of New Mexico after a landslide re-election victory in November 2006.  

Here are five of many reasons why I believe Richardson possesses the experience, vision and leadership skills to be a great President:

1.  A Bright Vision for America
2.  An Ironclad Promise to Promptly End the U.S. Occupation of Iraq
3.  A Bold Agenda To Address The Pressing Challenges Facing Our Nation and Planet
4.  The White House and A Landslide Victory for Democrats Nationwide in 2008
5.  Comprehensive Immigration Reform In Accordance With the Values Upon Which Our Country Was Founded

I saw in the Register that STAR-PAC, a group created to oppose the arms race, has endorsed Bill Richardson for president:

http://www.desmoines…

STAR PAC, an acronym for Stop the Arms Race Political Action Committee, said Wednesday that its central committee voted to support Richardson for many reasons, particularly the Democrat's promise to pull all U.S. forces out of Iraq within six months to one year.

“His message is the same wherever he speaks – to a military audience in Georgetown, a New Hampshire town meeting, in a rural Iowa community or at STAR PAC's candidate forum with the governor in August,” said Harold Wells, Iowa's STAR PAC chair.

This is a great get for Richardson. It has to be considered a blow to Barack Obama, who is campaigning as the guy who was right about Iraq from the beginning. I think it was a mistake for him to let other candidates get to his left on defunding the war and bringing our troops home quickly.

The Register notes that only Richardson, Edwards, Obama and Kucinich returned STAR-PAC's questionnaire. I'm not surprised that none of the Republican candidates gave this group the time of day, but I am surprised that Hillary blew them off. 

In a few moments, I will sign three agreements that will complete our negotiations with Mexico and Canada to create a North American Free Trade Agreement. In the coming months, I will submit this pact to Congress for approval. It will be a hard fight, and I expect to be there with all of you every step of the way. We will make our case as hard and as well as we can. And though the fight will be difficult, I deeply believe we will win. And I’d like to tell you why: first of all, because NAFTA means jobs American jobs, and good-paying American jobs. If I didn’t believe that, I wouldn’t support this agreement.

– Former President Bill Clinton speech on NAFTA, Sept. 13, 1993

Well, that didn’t work out so well for us, did it? In fact, third party presidential candidate Ross Perot was more accurate when he described NAFTA as a “giant sucking sound.” So what’s up with the Peru Free Trade Agreement currently being pushed through Congress? Is it more of the same?

As I've written a couple of posts below, I don't expect Rudy Giuliani to be the GOP nominee. However, I've noticed lately that several Democrats in the race have been going out of their way to take on Rudy.

Joe Biden scored at last week's debate with his joke that every sentence uttered by Rudy has a noun, a verb and 9/11, and his comment that Rudy is the most unqualified person to run for president since George W. Bush. His campaign has been milking these moments in fund-raising e-mails featuring highlights from the debate and outrageous comments made by Rudy. For instance:

As I wrote earlier, we expected another attack from Giuliani's campaign on Friday and they didn't disappoint. On a morning radio show, Rudy Giuliani made the unbelievable claim that Joe Biden has no foreign policy experience.

 

 

Make a contribution to help Joe keep Rudy on the run.

 

Host: You would say Senator Biden doesn't have foreign policy experience?

 

Giuliani: Has he ever been in the State Department? Has he ever been an executive? It's one thing…it's one thing to speak about what you want or even pass laws about it. It's another thing to actually do it. Foreign policy experience to me means being an ambassador, being in the state department. Being a law endorsement official. Dealing with foreign countries.

By now, we've come to expect this kind of blatant nonsense from Giuliani. But even we couldn't believe that just a few hours later, when asked about his comments, he would just outright deny saying it.

 

Giuliani: I didn't, I didn't mention foreign policy. I said Joe Biden fit into the category of Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Edwards. And they were all questioned about this at the debate, and he wasn't. Here's, here's here's the situation. They have–in a very strange way–they have never run a city, never run a state, never run a business. They've never run anything.

 

The radio station put out a press release of his first statement. There were video cameras present when he made the second statement. Yet that didn't keep him from just outright denying what he said. CNN captured the flip-flop on “The Situation Room” — you can watch the video here.

Barack Obama has also been mixing it up with Rudy, after Giuliani called Obama's strategy toward Iran naive and irresponsible. Over at Daily Kos, Adam B wrote a diary on the hard-hitting response from a spokesman for the Obama campaign:

http://www.dailykos….

While Rudy Giuliani may embrace Hillary Clinton's policy of not talking and saber rattling towards Iran, Barack Obama knows that policy is not working.  It's time for tough and direct diplomacy with Iran, not lectures from a Mayor who skipped out on the Iraq Study Group to give paid speeches, and who was naive and irresponsible enough to recommend someone with ties to convicted felons for Secretary of Homeland Security.

Kudos to the Obama campaign for calling attention to Rudy's failure to attend meetings of the Iraq Study Group. That issue alone should be enough to sink Giuliani's campaign.

Finally, I can't resist posting this statement Edwards campaign manager David Bonior made a few months back. It calls attention to Rudy's grotesque use of 9/11 imagery to promote himself, even though his administration could have done a lot more to prepare New York City's first responders for a possible attack:

http://www.johnedwar…

John Edwards for President National Campaign Manager Congressman David Bonior released the following statement in response to former Mayor Rudy Giuliani's comments that he was at ground zero in New York City “as often, if not more” than rescue workers. 

 

“Evidently, Rudy Giuliani has taken a break from reality. It is outrageous for Giuliani to suggest, in any way, shape or form, that he did more at ground zero or spent more time there than the brave first responders who worked tirelessly around the clock for many months during the rescue and recovery operation. It seems that Giuliani is determined to take every opportunity to exploit the memory of 9/11 for political gain, rather than honor the incredible sacrifices of our first responders. Enough is enough.

 

“Mayor Giuliani should start answering the serious questions of why firefighters and other first responders didn't have proper equipment and support. The 9/11 Commission and National Institute of Standards & Technology reports have documented the failures of the broken radio communications system, a splintered chain of command and an unprepared Office of Emergency Management under his watch as mayor. These are the questions he needs to answer.”

Is anyone seriously going to tell me that Rudy will be the Republican presidential nominee? This guy has way too much baggage.