“We” being everyone who wants to derail the Hillary inevitability train.

Clinton supporters are crowing about the latest Des Moines Register poll showing her leading likely Democratic voters in Iowa with 29 percent to 23 percent for Edwards, 22 percent for Obama, 8 percent for Richardson and 5 percent for Biden.

Here is the link for the poll:

http://www.desmoines…

Hillary has to be happy not just about her overall lead, but also her lead among voters over 65 and her big lead among women.

It's not good news for the other candidates, but it would be a mistake to say Hillary is going to cruise in Iowa. I think she is going to lose delegates when people go to their second choices on caucus night.

Edwards has dropped since May, but he hasn't been up on the air, while all of the other major candidates have blanketed the airwaves for two months or more. Despite that, he still leads among men and middle-aged Iowa voters. He is building a strong organization to identify and turn out supporters. I totally disagree with those who say he has no room to grow his support in Iowa.

Obama is holding steady. If he were my first choice, I'd be worried about the fact that he trails badly among older voters and does best among groups that are relatively unlikely to caucus (under 45 or independent). Clearly Obama needs to turn out record numbers of independents and first-time caucus-goers if he is going to win Iowa. He will have plenty of boots on the ground, though, so it is too early to count him out. 

Richardson was at 8 percent in this poll, which is not a statistically significant change from the 10 percent he had in May. Clearly, though, he is stuck around the 10 percent mark in IA and NH and is not continuing to gain momentum. He needs to do something to change the dynamic of the race if he wants to break into the top tier in Iowa. He may be tempted to play it safe and try for a cabinet appointment in the event that Hillary wins, though.

All of the candidates need to try to reduce or eliminate Hillary's leads with women and older voters. Individual supporters and precinct captains need to make those voter contacts in their neighborhoods and make the case for alternatives to Hillary. 

What do the rest of you think about the poll? 

Barack Obama's new tv ad features Retired Air Force General Merrill McPeak. It's a good ad. I couldn't figure out how to embed the video, but here is a link to it:

http://link.brightco…

I do have to wonder, though, how many undecideds are going to swing to Obama after watching this ad. It's not news to anyone that Obama opposed the war in Iraq before it began. If someone already knew this and isn't supporting Obama now, why would hearing McPeak talk about Obama's superior judgment make a difference?

I think Obama needs to make the case for why he is the best candidate to get us out of Iraq, and that's going to be hard for him to do, since his voting record on Iraq in the Senate is the same as Clinton's, and Richardson, Dodd and Biden are all running as more experienced candidates who have the “right” plan for ending the war.

I hate to link to The New Republic, but Michael Crowley does make an interesting point about the ad's use of a black and white photo of Obama in front of the White House–presumably designed to make him look presidential:

http://www.tnr.com/b…

This ad is a work of genius:

The Log Cabin Republicans support Rudy Giuliani, but they wisely say nothing of that in this ad.

They created the illusion of a positive ad (without scary music or unflattering still photos), while using clips of Romney that will absolutely annihilate him among the Republican base. Not only does it highlight his past support for Roe v Wade and keeping abortion safe and legal, in mentions his opposition to the NRA and even includes a clip of Romney saying, “I'm not trying to return to Reagan-Bush.”

Like I said, a work of genius. 

Paul Waldman has a rant in the American Prospect, complaining about Iowa's influence on the nominating process. Here is the link:

http://www.prospect….

And here is the key excerpt:

No small group of Americans deserves this power, but if any does, it sure isn't the citizens of Iowa. 

As you read this, some of the most important and powerful people in America are crawling through the Hawkeye State on their knees, pretending to know more than they do about corn, pretending that the deep fried Twinkie they had back at the state fair was just dee-licious, pretending that ethanol is the key to our energy future, and pretending that every precinct captain and PTA chair they meet is the very heart and soul of our nation, whose opinions the candidate is just dying to hear. And the good people of Iowa? They couldn't give a rat's ass.

If this is a typical election, somewhere between 6 and 10 percent of voting-eligible Iowans will bother to show up to a caucus. Yes, you read that right. Those vaunted Iowa voters are so concerned about the issues, so involved in the political process, so serious about their solemn deliberative responsibilities as guardians of the first-in-the-nation contest, that nine out of ten can't manage to haul their butts down to the junior high on caucus night. One might protest that caucusing is hard — it requires hours of time and a complicated sequence of standing in corners, raising hands, and trading votes (here is an explanation of the ridiculousness). But so what? If ten presidential candidates personally came to your house to beg for your vote, wouldn't you set aside an evening when decision time finally came?

But only one in ten Iowans can be bothered. Not only that, despite all the attention, Iowans know barely more about the candidates than citizens of other states, and don't discuss politics any more than anyone else (unless something has changed since this research was conducted in 2000). Yet around 200,000 of them, possessed of no greater wisdom or insight than the rest of us, will determine who presides over this nation of 300 million for the next four years. The problem isn't that Iowans aren't like the rest of the country (95 percent white, for one). The problem is that despite the extraordinary privilege of having the next president grovel before them, they're just as indifferent and apathetic as any other group of Americans.

I am no fan of the caucus system, but I think Waldman is unduly harsh on Iowans. First, Iowa is fairly representative of the U.S. politically, as a state divided roughly evenly that usually goes for the winner of the presidential election.

Second, turnout for the caucuses may be low in Iowa, but I bet that it would be lower for caucuses in any other state that lacks the tradition we have in Iowa. In some ways it's remarkable that so many people do haul themselves out of their homes for more than an hour on a cold winter weeknight.

But the main thing I will say for Iowans is that they give all the candidates a fair hearing. They do not let a few thousand maxed-out donors decide who is worth their attention.

The truth is that the “money primary” has far more malign influence over national media coverage of presidential elections than Iowa does. The Iowa results will influence media coverage for a week or two, but the money primary determines who gets covered nationally for a year or more.

If the national media had had their way, dark horses never would be able to break through to challenge front-runners. But Iowans were willing to listen to Howard Dean, and he started making a move in the polls here in 2003 before his fundraising got the national media's attention. Iowans were willing to give Kerry and Edwards a chance after the national media had written them off.

This year, Iowans are giving their serious consideration to Biden, Dodd and Richardson as well as the front-runners. Even bloggers who follow politics extremely closely are often quick to dismiss longshot candidates as jokes. I appreciate that Iowans who do plan to caucus will often take the time to learn about and listen to all of the candidates in our field.

So Waldman is incorrect to say that Iowans “don't give a rat's ass” about this process. If anything, Iowa caucus-goers take the process more seriously than the average cynical reporter who covers politics for a living. 

Adam B. at Daily Kos has a very good post on what accepting public financing means for John Edwards.

I am going to try to summarize and correct where I think he is wrong.  He is a lawyer and I am not, but I still think I'm correct.

1.  The overall expenditure cap for Edwards will theoretically be a little over $42 million.  He can also spend up to 20% on top of that ($8.5 million or thereabouts) for fundraising expenses.  The definition of fundraising expenses is pretty broad, so he would certainly max that number out, giving him an effective cap of maybe $51 million.  Any money he spends on legal stuff (compliance, etc.) doesn't count at all.

2.  His Iowa maximum expenditure is theoretically going to be around $1.5 million.  However, this only counts media expenditures, mailings, overhead (rent, furnishings, utilities, phones) phone programs (telemarketing and/or robocalls), and in-state polling.  For media it only counts the percentage of the buy that will reach Iowans, for overhead it only counts 90% of expenditures, and of that remaining amount only 50% of it really counts.

To put that in equation form, it would look something like this:

(Iowa% * Media) + (90% * Overhead) + Paid Phones + Mailings + Polling <= $3 million.

That's a very low number, but then again Edwards can just ignore the rule and pay some fines later on (probably after the end of the general election, even).  Therefore any concern about the limit is misplaced, and he should have plenty of money to implement his early-state strategy.  Of course, early-state strategies rarely work.

So, while this isn't as bad as I first though, I'm still of the opinion that an Edwards nomination turns a Democratic advantage into a Republican advantage for the general election.  I would say he's still more electable than Kucinich and Gravel, but has dropped far below every one of the other five major candidates.

Maybe Rush Limbaugh was “high on his drugs again.”

I put up the latest installment of this series at Daily Kos and MyDD. The diaries are geared toward people who are unfamiliar with the caucus system, but I would be interested in comments from Bleeding Heartland readers as well.

If you have read earlier installments of this series, you know that I am no fan of the caucus system. Too many people are excluded from participating because of the requirement that citizens show up in person at exactly 6:30 pm on a cold winter night, staying for an hour or more. People must express their preferences in public, creating an opportunity for intimidation by overbearing neighbors or family members. Determining the winner by state delegates can distort the results and put candidates with pockets of deep support at a disadvantage.

This post is about caucus math and how voters' second choices can affect the way raw voter numbers are translated into delegate counts.

If you make it to the end of this long diary, I hope to have convinced you that 1) caucus math can lead to strange outcomes, and 2) neither you nor I can be sure which candidate will benefit most from the way the math works.

More after the jump. 

According to the Tampa Tribune:

Obama also appeared to violate a pledge he and the other leading candidates took not to campaign in Florida before the primary.

How?

After the fundraiser at Scarritt’s Hyde Park home, Obama crossed the street to take half a dozen questions from reporters waiting there.

The pledge covers anything referred to in Democratic National Committee rules as “campaigning,” and those rules include “holding news conferences.”

Obama seemed unaware of that. Asked whether he was violating the pledge, he said, “I was just doing you guys a favor. … If that’s the case, then we won’t do it again.”

That was less than a day after the pledge took effect Saturday, and Obama is the first Democratic presidential candidate to visit Florida since then.

Via Atrios, I learned that Newt Gingrich will not run for president, having learned that he would have to give up his day job to do so. Link is here:

http://www.msnbc.msn…

Key excerpt:

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich will not run for president in 2008 after determining he could not legally explore a bid and remain as head of his tax-exempt political organization, a spokesman said Saturday.

“Newt is not running,” spokesman Rick Tyler said. “It is legally impermissible for him to continue on as chairman of American Solutions (for Winning the Future) and to explore a campaign for president.”

[…]

Just last week, Gingrich said he had given himself a deadline of Oct. 21 to raise $30 million in pledges for a possible White House bid, acknowledging the task was difficult but not impossible.

He abruptly dropped the idea Saturday, apparently unwilling to give up the chairmanship of American Solutions, the political arm of a Gingrich’s lucrative empire as an author, pundit and consultant.

American Solutions, a tax-exempt committee he started last October, has paid for Gingrich’s travel and has a pollster and fundraiser on staff.

Gingrich makes hundreds of speeches each year, many paid. He will not say how much he charges, and neither will the Washington Speakers Bureau, which books him. But some clients have said they paid $40,000 for a speech.

Amazing that people will pay $40,000 to hear Newt speak.

Still, too bad he won't be running for president. He would be my dream GOP opponent. Even Hillary could beat him. 

From City View's Civic Skinny…

Hillary Clinton’s deputy state director and caucus manager Angelique Pirozzi has left the Iowa effort to pursue “other opportunities,” Skinny hears. Pirozzi’s departure comes on the heels of the campaign’s former state director JoDee Winterhof getting demoted in favor of Teresa Vilmain, who consulted for Tom Vilsack’s short-lived presidential campaign. Clinton people tell Skinny that at least a half dozen field organizers — the supposedly smiling faces of the campaign — have also left recently. Skinny isn’t sure what to make of the revolving door.

Winterhof's change in job title puzzled me. Now more people are moving around and leaving will surely cause a few bumps in the road for the campaign in Iowa. The campaign staff that has been on the ground has built key relationships and it will take a new person to establish those relationships again.

To win the Iowa caucuses you must have a strong organization and then hope to get hot at the end. These personal changes can't help Clinton's organization in Iowa in the short term.

[corrected headline after learning from Adam B that Edwards is likely to receive about $10 million in matching funds]

I couldn't disagree more with Simon's post below. 

Marc Ambinder at The Atlantic gives the pros and cons of Edwards' decision to accept matching funds:

http://marcambinder….

The bottom line from my perspective is that Edwards will now have about as much cash on hand going into the home stretch as Hillary and Obama.

And since he has hardly spent anything on paid media in Iowa so far, he will continue to have flexibility in how he spends during the remainder of the campaign. This would be a bigger problem for him if he had already spent millions on tv ads in Iowa, as have several of his rivals.

On Edwards keeping his powder dry in Iowa, see Chris Bowers at Open Left:

http://www.openleft….

Key part of that post:

  Marc Ambinder has some key stats on how much paid media Democratic candidates have currently purchased in Iowa:

 

1. Obama: $2.8M
2. Richardson: $1.7M
3. Clinton: $1.2M
4. Dodd: $739K
5. Biden: $313K
6. Edwrds: $23K

We are now down to five serious Democratic candidates for President.

I'll be watching later, after the kids are in bed.

Post your comments on who did well, who missed opportunities, or whatever you like.

My pre-debate prediction is that Richardson and Biden will go at it over who has the right plan to get us out of Iraq.

I will be curious to see if anyone goes after Hillary for voting for the Kyl/Lieberman “sense of the Senate” amendment on Iran today. Biden and Dodd voted against, and Obama was absent but said he would have voted against.

I liked this statement from Dodd:

http://chrisdodd.com…

“I cannot support the Kyl-Lieberman amendment on Iran. To do so could give this President a green light to act recklessly and endanger US national security. We learned in the run up to the Iraq war that seemingly nonbinding language passed by this Senate can have profound consequences. We need the president to use robust diplomacy to address concerns with Iran, not the language in this amendment that the president can point to if he decides to draw this country into another disastrous war of choice.”

He added:

“We shouldn’t repeat our mistakes and enable this President again.”

For the past several Tuesdays, I have been posting diaries in support of John Edwards on the front page of MyDD.

This week I wrote a diary about Edwards' performance at the AARP forum in Davenport last Thursday. I thought it was a strong debate for all who participated, but I wanted to call attention to some particularly strong moments for Edwards.

The diary is long, so I put it after the jump. I welcome your feedback.

Tomorrow night there's another MSNBC debate. I don't have high hopes for the quality of the discussion, given the format and moderation of the previous debates hosted by that network. 

Commenter Ben Jacobs has some good analysis on how the caucus will likely work for college students.

Like I commented a while back, my one vote could be the most powerful in the state.

David Shuster, filling in for Tucker Carlson, humiliated Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) on MSNBC today. She knew all the GOP talking points against Moveon.org, but she didn't know the name of the last soldier from her own district to be killed in Iraq:

Kagro X at Daily Kos picks up the story from Crooks and Liars:

http://www.crooksand…

http://www.dailykos….

Here's part of the transcript: 

Shuster: “Let’s talk about the public trust. You represent, of course, a district in western Tennessee. What was the name of the last solider from your district who was killed in Iraq?”

Blackburn:”The name of the last soldier killed in Iraq uh – from my district I – I do not know his name -”

Shuster: “Ok, his name was Jeremy Bohannon, he was killed August the 9th, 2007. How come you didn’t know the name?”

Blackburn: “I – I, you know, I – I do not know why I did not know the name…” [Snip]

Shuster: “But you weren’t appreciative enough to know the name of this young man, he was 18 years old who was killed, and yet you can say chapter and verse about what’s going on with the New York Times and Move On.org.” [Snip]

Shuster: “But don’t you understand, the problems that a lot of people would have, that you’re so focused on an ad — when was the last time a New York Times ad ever killed somebody? I mean, here we have a war that took the life of an 18 year old kid, Jeremy Bohannon from your district, and you didn’t even know his name.”

Plenty more commentary in the thread below this diary:

http://www.dailykos….

Every candidate other than John Edwards and Barack Obama has made a serious effort to lay claim to the “Experienced” mantle.  To my eyes though, only Chris Dodd and to a lesser extent Bill Richardson are actually running as a experience candidates.  Think fast – what is one legislative achievement that Hillary Clinton puts at the front of her campaign?  How about Joe Biden?  Now how about Chris Dodd?

If you're like me, you've heard Dodd talk at length about the Family and Medical Leave Act, which is an important piece of legislation that I'm sure will matter to me in twenty or thirty years when I actually start to think about having kids.  (Much like, you know, Chris Dodd.)  He's also apparently done enough for firefighters that they felt compelled to endorse him over any of likely nominees.  (For comparison, in 2004 they went with then-frontrunner John Kerry with their late-September nod.)

Bill Richardson doesn't talk so much about his legislative record (for good reason, considering NAFTA is probably the biggest feather in his cap), but he does bring up his impressive experience in negotiating with foreign leaders.  He also talks about progress in New Mexico under his watch, which is expected from any Governor running for President.

Maybe I'm just not paying enough attention.  It seems to me though that those looking for experience should be thinking about these two instead of Clinton or Biden. 

One of the possibilities that horseracers find exciting is the potential for a tight two-way or three-way race coming out of Super Tuesday.  Some people are just in it for the West Wing theatrics of a brokered convention, while others enjoy the poetic justice of all the early states being rendered meaningless and the surviving candidates fiercely battling for Montana's 15 and South Dakota's 14 pledges delegates on June 3rd.

What people usually miss in this discussion, though, is that most caucus/convention states don't officially select their delegates until their state conventions – the “results” from their precinct or county-level caucuses are really just estimates of what would happen were the convention held that day (and not even good estimates at that).  Delegates to the county convention can pick a different candidate to support than they did in their precinct, and state and district delegates have the opportunity to change their minds as well.

This means that, though Wikipedia would have you believe that the last delegate is pledged on June 3rd, in fact the last 18 delegates are selected on June 28th by the Idaho Democratic State Convention.  And directly preceding that?  Iowa.

Nebraska and Iowa (and no one else) hold their conventions on June 14th, electing 24 and 10 pledged delegates respectively (Most of Iowa's delegates are actually elected at the congressional district conventions).  The biggest post-primary prize is Minnesota, which I understand to elect all 72 of their pledged delegates at their June 7th convention.  Still, I find it pretty awesome that Iowa will be a critical state no matter how things shake out.

(Information on convention dates was collected here.)

It is really easy to bang away at the keyboard sneering and playing Monday Morning Quarterback with our politicians at all levels.  Which isn't to say that those sneers and second-guesses are unearned.  But at the end of the day if we really, really want to look ourselves in the mirror, or face our children and say we are really making a difference then it is time to push ourselves away from the desk.  Time to walk the walk.

Which is why I announced this week that I am running for Clinton City Council for an At-Large seat.  The election is this November 6.

Iowa should not pick the next president. I don't think my opinion should matter more than those in other states. However, I do think Iowa and New Hampshire should go first because they are small states that are won on the ground with retail politics. If Iowa and New Hampshire weren't first, then Joe Biden and Chris Dodd would not be in the race and maybe even Bill Richardson and campaigns would be won with TV ads, large donor fundraisers, and even more mud throwing.

You don't need a ton of money to do well in Iowa, just look at Mike Huckabee's performace at the Ames Straw Poll. Huckabee had less than half a million dollars on hand at the end of the July. In some states, one TV ad costs more money than Huckabee has. Huckabee is still able to gain traction in the race because Iowa is first.

I see Iowa's job to narrow the field down. Let everyone and their brother/sister/mailman campaign in Iowa. We will attend the events at the coffee shops and in the city parks and ask the tough questions. Those that can't make it through this game of retail politics and meet the people face to face will drop out and those that can, will move on to the other states.

What needs to happen is to spread the nominating calendar out. Back in '68 things didn't get heated up until May and June. Now we will have this thing decided by early February. Whomever comes out on top will then get pummeled by the Republican Noise machine for 6 months before the convention. That is not good the democratic process or for the Democratic Party.