I just got this press release on the Sierra Club Iowa topics e-mail list:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: 19 June 2007
Contact: Josh Dorner, 202.675.2384

                    Senate Says Firm No to Liquid Coal
         Vote Puts the Public Interest Ahead of Special Interests

          Statement of Carl Pope, Sierra Club Executive Director

“In spite of Herculean efforts by the coal industry and its friends in
Congress, the Senate today delivered a very important victory in the fight
against global warming by decisively voting against jumpstarting a new
massively expensive, massively polluting liquid coal industry–twice.
Senators showed that they understood that we need to leave behind the
failed policies of the past–and past Congresses.

“At a time when we need to get on the path to achieving an 80 percent
reduction in our global warming emissions by 2050–an achievable annual
reduction of 2 percent–the level scientists tell us is necessary to avoid
the most catastrophic effects of global warming, business as usual is no
longer acceptable.  Liquid coal produces nearly twice the global warming
pollution as conventional fuel and Senators were right to turn their backs
on it.

“Though Senators successfully blocked these damaging liquid coal
provisions, they now need to turn their attention to breaking a filibuster
led by Senator Domenici that is preventing a fair up or down vote on the
Bingaman Renewable Electricity Standard amendment.  Senators must also
block attempts by Senators Levin, Bond, and Pryor to further weaken the
CAFE compromise in the bill.

“We thank Senators for their leadership on this important vote and hope
they will continue to make the changes necessary to make this bill one that
we can truly be proud of.”

The person who posted the press release noted that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton both voted FOR the coal to oil subsidy, which thankfully did not pass the Senate.

That is pathetic. I'm not surprised that Hillary voted yes, because the Clintons have never seemed to care much about the environment.

But for Obama to support this subsidy for the coal industry suggests to me that he is not serious about dealing with global warming. Dodd, Richardson, and Edwards all have put forward superior proposals on this issue. 

UPDATE: Here is a link to the Senate roll call vote on liquid coal:

http://www.senate.go…

Of the presidential candidates, Clinton and Obama voted yes, Biden voted no, Dodd, McCain and Brownback did not vote. (I'm sure Dodd would have voted no.) 

Harkin and Grassley both voted no. 

John Deeth put up his liveblog of a Mitt Romney event in Muscatine, and this part jumped out at me:

Health care and portability and preexisting. “The Democrats have their answer: Socialized medicine Hillary care is not the answer.” Big applause. Cites Mass. program and private sector.

The Republicans are so clueless. Hillary would do less to shake up the for-profit health insurance industry than practically anyone else in the Democratic field. It would be baby steps at most on health care. Nothing nearly as bold as what Obama and Edwards are offering, and certainly not single-payer, as Kucinich is advocating.

Even single-payer (“Medicare for all”) is not really socialized medicine, because the government would not be running all the hospitals and doctors' offices. The government would just be the payer.

But arguing these points with Republicans is pointless. They have decided that ultra-left-wing Hillary is for socialized health care, and they will pound this point home. 

Hillary Clinton would be an incredibly weak general election candidate–she's got all the downsides of the leftist image with none of the upside of a truly progressive policy agenda.

Sorry, I meant to put up a post yesterday about this weekend's campaign events. This is from Saturday's Register:

  Saturday

DEMOCRAT HILLARY CLINTON

Indianola:  4 p.m., fundraiser for state Sen. Staci Appel, Warren County Fairgrounds, Lester Building.

Ames: 6:30 p.m., Story County Democrats fundraiser, Prairie Moon Winery, 3801 W. 190th St.

DEMOCRAT BARACK OBAMA

Dubuque: Noon; canvass kickoff for “Walk for Change” event at Lincoln Elementary School, 555 Nevada St.

BEAU BIDEN, SON OF DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE JOE BIDEN

Des Moines: 1 p.m., house party, home of Drake law professor Dan Power, 3816 John Lynde Road.
Ames: 7 p.m., Story County Democrats fundraiser, Prairie Moon Winery, 3801 W. 190th St.

 

Continue Reading...

The Des Moines Register reports that Teresa Vilmain, perhaps the top political operative in Iowa, is replacing JoDee Winterhof as Iowa state director for Hillary Clinton. Vilmain had been working for Tom Vilsack's presidential campaign before he dropped out. Winterhof will now be a senior strategist for the Clinton campaign in Iowa. She commented:

“The significance of the change is bringing on someone at Teresa's level, with her level of experience and history in the state and history with the caucuses,” Winterhof said in an interview. “That is one more piece of evidence of how serious Senator Clinton is taking this campaign, how serious our effort here in Iowa is.”

Nate Willems comments at MyDD that Vilmain is in the same league as John Norris, who ran John Kerry's campaign in Iowa last cycle. Willems adds,

the idea is that Hillary Clinton has made the one big hire that has the potential to turn her campaign around in Iowa.  I don't know if Vilmain can do for Clinton what Norris did for Kerry, but if I were working for either Obama or Edwards in Iowa today, my paranoia level would have just gone through the roof.

Clinton has been lining up the support of some big Vilsack donors as well, including Bill Knapp and most recently Jerry Crawford.

Why these smart Democrats can't see that Hillary would be a disaster for us in down-ticket races (not just in Iowa, but in much of the country) I don't know, but I am not feeling paranoid at all.

In fact, I am glad that expectations for the Clinton campaign will now rise.

What is her excuse going to be if she comes in a distant third on caucus night now?

(Probably that Iowans are sexist, but I hope the MSM won't buy that line. Iowa Democrats are not sexist. We have nominated two women for governor and at least five for U.S. representative.) 

I urge all Iowa supporters of the other presidential candidates to redouble your efforts to GOTV for the candidate of your choice. We have the opportunity to derail the Clinton inevitability train. Let's not waste it.

Responding to my post on the Obama health care proposal, Obama supporter RF wrote this:

I think we definitely need to know what ideas the candidates have on the major issues, have an idea where each candidate would like to take us.  But political reality is that the president will need to work with Congress on all legislation.  No president will ever get exactly what s/he wants in any piece of legislation.  It’s like obsessing about grammar and style in a rough first draft or an outline of an article, knowing that it will be completely rewritten.

Obviously any president will need to work with Congress. But it is very important to know what the president's starting point for negotiations will be.

I am a lousy negotiator, because I try to figure out what a fair compromise is, and that's my first offer. I have made that mistake several times in my life.

Look at Bush's record of legislative success. He puts in every bad idea on the Republican wish list, and he ends up getting almost everything he asks for. He doesn't say, Congress would never pass that extreme an energy bill. He just keeps asking for everything, even highly controversial things like drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge. In the end, ANWR was excluded from the bill, but Bush got all the other bad stuff he wanted.

Similar story on taxes. Bush has asked for all manner of ridiculous, unaffordable tax cuts. He kept asking, even if Congress didn't immediately pass what he asked for. At this point, the only thing he couldn't get through was the permanent repeal of the estate tax. But he aimed high and got almost everything else he wanted.

Hillary Clinton's starting point on health care will be a few nibbles here and there, trying to get health insurance for some portion of the enormous uninsured population. Even if Congress gave her everything she asked for (which wouldn't happen), we would be far from universal access to health care.

Barack Obama's plan seems much better than Hillary's, and more detailed, but from what I have read, it is also less than a universal plan, and it lacks some of the elements I like in Edwards' plan.

I am under no illusion that Congress would rubber-stamp what Edwards asks for, but I feel quite confident that he will drive a hard bargain and get us the best possible deal for health care. I feel that Clinton and Obama will not push Congress as hard on this issue. 

On energy policy, so far Dodd, Richardson and Edwards have offered the most ambitious proposals to combat global warming. No doubt these would not get through Congress intact, but it is very important to aim high (e.g. policies that would achieve an 80 percent reduction in carbon emissions by 2050).

So bring on the details, I say, and tell us what your legislative priorities would be. 

Tom Vilsack has long perplexed me. He's a talented politician who pulled off a couple of impressive election victories–especially 2002, when he had a moderate opponent in a terrible year for Democrats nationwide. What's more, he's an incredibly smart, hard-working guy. But I never could figure out his priorities as governor.

Why did he go to the mat for the “Values Fund,” corporate welfare masquerading as an economic development plan? Why did he not do more for the environment? And in particular, why was he always pushing biotech and “pharma-crops” that could contaminate food grown in Iowa and destroy the markets that Iowa farmers depend on? Why was he nowhere on any of the policies sustainable agriculture advocates have been calling for, which would be great for local economies and family farmers, as well as easier on the land?

I just didn't get it.

Then he started running for president. I took his candidacy at face value–like many senators and governors, he thought he could do a good job as president and figured, why not try, even if it is a long shot? I even defended him on some of the blogs when people would accuse him of being nothing more than a stalking horse for Hillary Clinton (trying to take Iowa out of play or at least weaken Edwards here).

Vilsack talked a good game when he was running for president. I liked what he said about a lot of issues, including Iraq. The joke in my circle of friends was that Vilsack was sounding a lot better as a presidential candidate than he had as governor. I settled on Edwards as a candidate, but a few progressives I know, including my husband, were considering Vilsack.

When Vilsack dropped out early, I thought he did the honorable thing by giving his staff opportunities to get good jobs with the other campaigns. And I agreed with what he said about the role of money in politics, even though I thought he came pretty late to that party. I don't recall ever hearing him talk about public financing or clean elections reforms as governor.

Cynics immediately assumed that Vilsack would endorse Clinton–a done deal. I gave him the benefit of the doubt. But boy was I disappointed. For someone who staked his campaign on getting us out of Iraq immediately, he found it amazingly easy to endorse the Democrat with the worst positioning on the Iraq issue. If Hillary Clinton has said or done anything to help us start withdrawing troops before March 2009, I don't know what that is.

And if Vilsack really cares about the influence of money in politics, why did he turn around and endorse the favorite candidate of corporate lobbyists and low-lifes such as Rupert Murdoch?

Reading reports of his campaign appearances with Clinton, I felt disappointed and just tired of his song and dance.

The Des Moines Register ran a big story talking up Vilsack's role in the Clinton campaign. But guess what? He didn't have coat tails when we repeatedly failed to retake the Iowa House and Senate during his governorship. And Clinton hasn't been gaining in the Iowa polls following Vilsack's departure from the race.

My hunch is that Iowans are going to prove one more time that endorsements don't win the caucuses.  

But here's the part of the article that bugged me the most:

Their personal connection through Christie Vilsack's late brother, Tom Bell, and Vilsack's loyalty to Clinton for campaigning with him at a key point in his 1998 long-shot bid for governor, were key to a decision aides described as automatic.

If his friendship with the Clintons and ambition for the VP slot or a cabinet post are that important, then he shouldn't have wasted other people's time and money on his presidential bid. Everyone has known for a long time that Hillary was running for president. Vilsack just wasn't serious about taking her on, and it makes all of his presidential campaign rhetoric–especially on Iraq–look empty.

Reminds me of why I voted for Mark McCormick in the 1998 gubernatorial primary. 

I forgot to post event details in advance of Hillary Clinton's visit to north-central and northwest Iowa this weekend. According to the Des Moines Register, she didn't sound like a candidate planning to skip the caucuses:

“I'm going to spend so much time in Iowa, I'm going to be able to caucus for myself,” she said.

The comment sparked chuckles from audiences in Mason City, Charles City and Algona. But it was as close as she came to acknowledging the dust-up last week over campaign strategy.

Clinton is in a bind. She is unlikely to win Iowa and may come in third or worse, if Richardson were to make a move and Obama continues to gain strength.

But announcing that she is going to skip Iowa makes her look weak and reinforces the idea that she would not run well in the swing states. What state carried by Bush in 2004 would she win, if she is afraid to compete among Iowa Democrats?

So the best strategy for her would be to publicly make a play for Iowa while quietly trying to reduce Iowa's influence. And the obvious way to do that was suggested by her deputy campaign manager, Mike Henry, in the memo that advocated skipping Iowa. As summarized by TPM Cafe's Sunday election roundup, the salient fact is that

before Iowa and New Hampshire even vote, potentially millions of absentee ballots will already have been sent out in the larger states voting on February 5. “Iowans will not be the first to vote … We must fund an expensive paid communications and a vote by mail/early vote program in these mega-states,” Henry wrote.

This is in my mind the biggest current problem for Edwards and Obama as they try to derail the Hillary inevitability train. They have to hope that she drops in the national polls well before the end of the year. Otherwise she could rack up a big lead in early voting in places like Florida, Calilfornia, and New York, helping her compensate for potentially poor performances in Iowa and New Hampshire. 

The Sunday Register has a new Iowa poll.

The big news on the Republican side is that Romney leads. On the Democratic side, things look like this:

Edwards 29 percent

Obama 23 percent

Clinton 21 percent

Richardson 10 percent

Biden 3 percent

Kucinich 2 percent

Gravel 1 percent

Dodd less than 1 percent

not sure 11 percent

As with every poll, I think this understates the percentage of undecideds. My best guess is that 30 to 40 percent of the caucus-going Democrats I talk to are undecided.

I am not at all surprised to see Obama in second place, even if his lead on Clinton is within the margin of error. I have long argued that Edwards and Obama would finish ahead of Clinton in Iowa. 

Looks like spending money on tv ads was a smart move for Richardson. It helped that they were unusual and memorable tv ads. They've certainly got a lot of people talking. 

The poll claims a 4.9 percent margin of error. If you want to know more about the methodology, including the wording of the questions asked, click here.

The latest Iowa poll conducted by Research 2000 for KCCI-TV (the CBS affiliate in Des Moines) shows Clinton leading with 28 percent, Edwards within the margin of error at 26 percent, Obama with 22 percent, and Richardson with 7 percent.

It's a big change from the last Research 2000/KCCI poll, which was in December and showed Edwards and Obama tied at 22 percent, with Tom Vilsack in third place with 12 percent.

Click the link if you want to read the details.

If this poll is accurate, there has been a massive surge in support for Hillary Clinton over the past six months. I don't get that sense, but what are you hearing?

It looks like Richardson's early tv ads have raised his profile in Iowa quite a bit. He only had 1 percent support in the December poll.

In this poll, Obama does slightly better in head-to-head matchups with the Republican front-runners than Edwards, while Edwards does slightly better than Clinton.

I wonder what the likely voter screen is on this poll. In talking to Iowa Democrats who actually participated in the 2004 caucuses (as opposed to people who didn't but claim that they plan to participate in the upcoming caucuses), I have trouble finding Clinton supporters. I really do. I was just talking to a Clinton leaner yesterday, but even she said, without prompting from me, that Clinton has a lot of baggage, and she's just not sure if she could win.

I found the Bush approval numbers from this poll interesting. Approve/disapprove numbers for all respondents are 30/68.

The numbers for Democrats are 8/90.

The numbers for independents are 29/70.

Even among Republicans sampled, Bush's approval was only measured at 56 percent; disapproval was 42 percent. Those are shockingly poor numbers. 

“Town Hall” in quotes in the title because, not unlike a Bush ’04 event, questions are being screened.  The theme of the town hall is “health care,” so it makes some sense to screen out the sensible priority spammers, but don’t look for any tough questions about her failed handling of the health care initiative during the first Clinton administration either.  If you watch it and feel like the questions are a little too softball, let Jennifer Wlach at ABC know what you thought.

From Mark Schmidt at The American Prospect:

One that might be of interest to liberals thinking about whether to support Clinton is “Labor Relations.” In this section, Senator Clinton’s top advisor [Mark Penn]’s company says, “Companies cannot be caught unprepared by Organized Labor’s coordinated campaigns whether they are in conjunction with organizing or contract negotiating … That is why we have developed a comprehensive communications approach for clients when they face any type of labor situation.”

As I mentioned on my personal blog earlier today former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack is expected to endorse former First Lady and current New York Senator Hillary Clinton in her bid for President at a Monday announcement here in Des Moines.  We can address my confusion about the situation over at Political Forecast, but in this post I want to focus on the substantive benefits of endorsements in the Iowa Caucuses.

David Yepsen has a front-page analysis on the endorsement on the Register’s website right now.  He argues that endorsements are part of the old politics in Iowa:

“In Iowa, endorsement politics is old politics. Nobody “delivers” anything anymore, particularly in high-profile races. Yet we media people make a big deal out of them, despite the fact Iowa just doesn’t have the sort of machine politics once seen in urban areas or ethnic neighborhoods. In those places, an endorsement from a key political leader or organization means something, because that leader can produce votes for the anointed candidate. Even in those places today, such influence is on the wane.”

To his credit, he does cite many examples like AFSCME’s endorsement of Howard Dean in 2004 and Mike Blouin in 2006, Senator Tom Harkin’s endorsement of Howard Dean in 2004, and Vilsack’s endorsement of Dusky Terry in the Democratic Secretary of State primary as cases where high-profile endorsements don’t yield results.

In 2004, most statewide elected officials waited until late in the race to make endorsements.  According to the Democracy in Action 2004 page at GWU, most of the officials made their endorsements within the last two weeks in the lead up to the Caucuses.  Already in the 2008 race, Tom Miller and Michael Fitzgerald have endorsed Barack Obama’s candidacy, while Sen. Harkin had endorsed Tom Vilsack.  Their page says this:

“Whether or not endorsements make any difference on Caucus Night is debatable, but they are important in the pre-primary period when developing campaigns strive to build credibility.  Campaigns go to considerable effort to round up endorsements.  The first targets are prominent party leaders including elected officials, former officials, erstwhile candidates, and party activists.  In addition, campaigns seek support of community activists and business and civic leaders; Democratic candidates also woo labor support.

The timing and format of endorsement announcements can be significant.  A mass endorsement, with elected officials lined up behind the candidate, can draw significant attention.  Alternatively, rolling out a steady stream of endorsements over a period of time can bolster the impression of a growing campaign.  Picking up a prominent supporter who had formerly been with another campaign is regarded as a coup, worthy of a press release or press conference. “

Admittedly, the debate all depends on the statistics and results one decides to pull out.

So far, Vilsack’s endorsement might only mean that he’s encouraging his former staffers to take jobs with the Clinton campaign.  To some degree, that’s already happening.  Vilsack’s Polk County Organizer, Amanda York, has already signed on to Clinton’s campaign and was at Wednesday’s Polk County Dems Off-Year Caucus.  His former Deputy Internet Director, Kevin Thurman, also now works for Clinton’s campaign.  But Vilsack’s encouragement also might not mean as much to former staffers.  Udai Rohatgi, another Internet staffer, now works for the Obama Campaign.  Teresa Vilmain, one of Vilsack’s seasoned presidential campaign experts, is likely to sign on with Clinton as well (if she hasn’t already).  So, we’ll see where the chips end up falling.

I’m of the opinion that endorsements by local leaders are more likely to make a difference early on in the race to give credibility to the candidate and to get organization going.  High-profile officials tend to be more beneficial later on in the race, when you’re trying to reach out to undecideds and use a popular, high-profile official to say, “Your respected leader has faith in me and my campaign, please support me in your precinct caucus.”  Then again, I’m not a seasoned caucus veteran.  So, tell me what you think in the comments below.

She will finish fourth in the Iowa caucuses.

I used to think the top three would be Edwards, Obama and Vilsack in some order. I now think there is an opening for Richardson to finish in the top three if he makes a serious play for Iowa.

I have been saying this at MyDD and elsewhere and getting laughed at by some who follow the polls, but no one (myself included) thought Gephardt would finish fourth either. Follow me after the jump for the short version of my reasoning.

Strategic Vision has released a new Iowa poll of 600 Republican and 600 Democratic likely caucus-goers.

The Democratic results are being discussed here at MyDD.

Numbers below the fold.

A while back I read an article that mentioned John Edwards being endorsed by a plurality of the chairs of the Democratic Party county committees. I can’t remember where I read this, though, and I can’t seem to find it again.

Does anyone out there have detailed information about which county chairs have endorsed presidential candidates, and whom they have endorsed? I would imagine that so far Edwards and Vilsack have the lion’s share of the endorsements at this level, but I would like to see confirmation of this.

I would also be interested in knowing how many county chairs endorsed presidential candidates in 2004 and which candidates they endorsed, if this information is out there somewhere.

Today, the National Journal released their latest rankings on the Democrats seeking the presidential nomination in 2008.  Here are their rankings:

1. Hillary Clinton

2. Barack Obama

3. John Edwards

4. Bill Richardson

5. Chris Dodd

6. Tom Vilsack

7. Joe Biden

8. Wesley Clark

9. Dennis Kucinich

10. Mike Gravel

Make sure to check out what they have to say about each candidate and the fundraising predictions that they are making.

Let me add a couple of things to the questions or things they are talking about in their descriptions of each candidate.  It seems that they frame Clinton’s problem as one of responsibility or the ability to appear genuine.  Iowa Democrats, in my opinion, are looking for a genuine candidate who is able, ready, and willing to admit mistakes.  John Edwards and Barack Obama easily have that advantage over her — and I’m pretty sure some Iowa Democrats are already holding that against her.

Chuck Todd and Marc Ambinder are looking for some staff beyond Nevada to impress them some more and prove that he is everyone’s second choice.  Here’s some nice news that I have heard: former Iowa Democratic Party Field Director Brad Frevert has joined Richardson’s campaign as his go-to guy for Iowa field operations.  Frevert’s an Iowa-boy, and worked with Jesse Harris (who is Vilsack’s field guy), so we know he’s got Iowa field knowledge coming out the wazoo.

They note that Chris Dodd is basically raising lots of money because he’s got a cushy position as Chair of the Senate Banking Committee.  It is true, but he’s also taking leadership on restoring Habeas Corpus.  That’ll give him a little edge with which to hold on to some grassroots activists.

Finally, we get to Vilsack, and this is the question I have to ask: Does the endorsement of Barack Obama by Tom Miller and Mike Fitzgerald really mean anything?  Todd and Ambinder seem to think that’s bad news, as do the folks over at CityView’s Civic Skinny.  Now, maybe because I’m young I might be a bit naive about Iowa politics, but do Miller and Fitzgerald really have that big of a following in Iowa that their endorsement would swing Iowa voters to Obama?  I don’t believe that for one bit, but I guess I have to keep inserting the naive bit just in case.  Both Miller and Fitzgerald have been around in state Democratic politics forever and neither were indebted to Vilsack at all, so I don’t think there was a lot of pressure for Vilsack to lock up their endorsement.

And let’s not forget, Tom Miller endorsed Joe Lieberman in 2004 and Lieberman didn’t even make it to the caucuses.  I’m not saying Obama won’t make it to the caucuses (he will) but Miller seems to endorsed based on how well you’re doing early on in the race, not simply based on issues.

Finally, Joe Biden will be back in the state this weekend (or is supposed to be, but it looks like Sen. Reid might be scheduling a vote for Saturday), so I think we’ll officially be able to gauge Iowan reactions to his campaign after he’s been here as a serious candidate.

Anyway, what’re your thoughts on the rankings?  And if you haven’t already, make sure to vote in the poll on the left side of the page.

The previous discussion about caucus pledge cards got me thinking.  Hillary’s camp made a big mistake last week.

Hillary’s first mistake, besides the whole National Anthem part, was not aggressively soliciting pledge cards from the audience.  I think I may have seen a sign-up sheet on a table, but that’s not going to do it.

Now, sure, it’s early.  And maybe the audience was more “undecided” than “committed.”  But the fact is Team Hillary didn’t push people to sign up, at least in my opinion.

There were 3,000 folks there, the vast majority of which were caucus-going Iowa Democrats.  And they were there to see Hillary.  It seems like a wasted opportunity to let all those future volunteers/precinct captains slip by, especially when Hillary lacks activist structure in Iowa.

At a Vilsack event I attended, the folks were pretty aggressive about getting attendees to fill out the cards.

It will be interesting to see if Team Obama has the materials and the capacity (staff + volunteers) to capture pledge cards from the crowds in Cedar Rapids, Waterloo and Ames, which I hear will be huge.

Also, FYI, the Ames event has been moved to the Hilton Coliseum.

Well, ARG has a new Iowa (and New Hampshire) poll out on the 2008 presidential candidates. Remember that their December poll was not consistent with other polls on the Democratic side, presumably because of a different definition of “likely caucus goer.” With the ARG criteria, the Iowa likely caucus goers had Clinton on top in December, like the likely primary voters in other states and nationally, while other pollsters had Edwards on top for likely Iowa caucus goers. With that caveat, it is interesting to see the trends after Obama’s announcement and Clinton’s visit to Iowa. There may be further movement with Obama’s visit to Iowa next week.

ARG, phone interviews of 600 likely Iowa caucus goers, Jan 29 – Feb 1, 07 (Dec. 06), +/- 4%

Clinton 35 (31)

Edwards 18 (20)

Obama  14 (10)

Vilsack 12 (17)

Biden, Clark, and Kucinich had 2% each, and Richardson and Dodd had 1%. 13% were undecided.

There is a gender bias, with 39% of the Iowa women surveyed supporting Clinton, and 30% of the men surveyed supporting Clinton. If only previous caucus goers were counted, Clinton had 29% and Edwards had 25%.

Not a huge change from December, but Clinton and Obama did move up some, and Edwards and Vilsack dropped some. For all of his efforts, Vilsack is going in the wrong direction in his home state. It isn’t just slow recognition of the their governor as presidential material, because Richardson comes out on top with 28% among 2008 candidates in New Mexico.

Identifying likely caucus goers at this stage is a crap shoot, but the trends are interesting.

Does Vilsack have a chance of winning the Iowa caucuses?

For anyone who has traveled east-bound on Hwy. 20 near Tama, it’s hard to miss.  There’s a barn with a giant sign on it.  It’s been up for months.

What does it say?  Hint: it doesn’t have anything to do with farming.

“STOP HILLARY”

IowaPolitics.com has the press release from the Clinton campaign.

The Clinton presidential campaign announced today that veteran Iowa operative JoDee Winterhof will run its state operation. Winterhof, a fourth-generation Iowan, served as Sen. Tom Harkin’s chief-of-staff from 1999-2003, and worked on his presidential and senatorial campaigns…

In addition to her work for Senator Harkin and other campaigns in Iowa, Winterhof served as the first Political Director of America Coming Together (ACT) during the 2004 election cycle, executing the largest progressive voter mobilization in history. She will take a leave as a principal at Grassroots Solutions, a firm that specializes in grassroots advocacy, political field consulting, training, and targeting.

Before that, Winterhof was the National Project Director for The White House Project, a non-partisan public education campaign working to see women at the highest levels of leadership in the country and served in the political operation of EMILY’s List.  Additionally, she served as a political appointee in the Clinton-Gore administration at the National Women’s Business Council.

Is any one going to the events in Des Moines or Cedar Rapids? Any predictions on format, openess? Anyone know what the Des Moines venue (East High School Community Center) can hold?

I think this event will be very interesting/ telling of how the big name candidates start in the state. Senators Obama, Clinton, and Edwards are going to need to do small scale personal events, but is there any way to keep folks from coming in droves to these candidates. The best remedy of course is saturation (visit, rinse, repeat) When I think about it, a year until the caucus doesn’t seem that long with all the work these candidates need to put in the state. Small candidates have some good advantages of meeting with many folks in small groups and can have events that seem less staged and definately more fulfiling. I am excited to see how it all shapes out.

What will win out? “The tortoise or the hare strategy?” Could Vilsack be planning on the latter for a win?