Strategic Vision, a Republican polling firm, has released their first polling on the Iowa Caucuses.  Here are the results:

John Edwards 25%

Barack Obama 17%

Tom Vilsack 16%

Hillary Clinton 15%

Joe Biden 4%

John Kerry 3%

Wesley Clark 2%

Bill Richardson 1%

Chris Dodd 1%

Dennis Kucinich 1%

Undecided 15%

It is remarkably similar to the Zogby poll just released a few days ago, which you can find here.

What is your perspective on the race in Iowa from the ground?  And don’t forget to take the caucus poll on the right.

Should I watch it, or Veronica Mars?  The fact that this is a tough decision bothers me.  I just really don’t give a shit what Bush has to say any more.

Former LG candidate Andy McGuire is on board with Hillary Clinton.  So is somehow-related former state chair and Congressional candidate Sheila Riggs.  Obviously Bonnie Campbell is on board.  Also involved is Kim Pieper, the campaign manager for Selden Spencer and former finance director for Mike Blouin’s gubernatorial campaign.

While it jumps out at me that Clinton seems to be running a Y chromosome-free campaign here, after some consideration (on a blog?  wtf?) it is most likely a combination of self-selection and me being a man.  Vilsack’s high-level staff, for example, is really dude-heavy – TPM lists one female and eleven males.  That’s pretty typical – Edwards has three females and thirteen males, and Obama has six and fifteen.  Hillary is actually the most gender-balanced nationally, with somewhere between eleven and thirteen females out of twenty-three total.  These lists aren’t comprehensive or 100% accurate, but they do give a broad view on things.  I imagine that Hillary will end up having a pretty well-balanced staff in Iowa too once she starts staffing up for real.

And what is up with all these other guys?  Can’t find any chicks to hire for senior staff?

I’m curious for your thoughts.  As you know, I blog over at Political Forecast, treating it as my home blog.  But I also want to make Bleeding Heartland be the best political and community blog in Iowa.  My question for you then is whether or not I should haul over my posts from Political Forecast over here, or should I write other unique stuff here and kind of go back and forth?  Or should I theme my writing here?

Let me know your thoughts and ideas.  Thanks.

One of the thing that irritates me most about political coverage is how ugly candidates are covered as though they are totally foxy.  John Kerry was described as handsome all the freaking time in 2004, despite the fact that he looks like a painting that has been rained on.  Seriously, the man has more jowl than Ted Stevens and Robert Byrd combined.  When I was working on the Howard Dean campaign, I came up with a joke about him:  “John Kerry walks into a bar.  Bartender says, ‘Why the long face?’”  And I wasn’t the only one.

So anyway, now they are doing the same thing with Obama.  I like Obama.  I think most women would probably like Obama, too.  But Barack Obama is not a hottie.  He is a skinny guy with really big ears and a big mouth, and he smiles with his eyes almost shut, which makes him look like an anime character.  He’s not totally uggs like JK, but he’s basically average looking, and I say this as a skinny guy with big ears.  I realize DC is Hollywood for ugly people, but our standards could still be a little bit higher.  John Edwards actually is really hot, so it’s not like the media can’t write it about somebody.

I don’t think this matters much in the grand scheme of things – Goofiness hasn’t been much of a barrier to the Presidency, and in fact seems like an asset if you look through the history books.  (At least the kind I like, with lots of pictures and not very many words.)  Looks don’t really matter much to me either; I did support Howard Dean, who can most accurately be described as looking like a miniature lumberjack.

And don’t get me started on the Republicans.  I could write a whole post just on Duncan Hunter, the Representative from What The Fuck Is Wrong With Your Eyebrow.

Another day, another study that purports to show that Americans won’t support a female candidate.  Once again this only focuses on the negative, failing to take into account that some people (like me) might be MORE likely to vote for a woman.

And while it’s hard to judge a study from a press release, the basic methodology seems totally sketchball.  Basically they asked a control group whether four things made them angry (gas prices, athlete pay, ceo pay, and pollution), then asked another group whether a woman serving as president bothered them, followed by all those other statements.  Overall anger went up by a lot, so they conclude that about a quarter of the population gets upset by the idea of a woman being president.

Might I suggest that the word pissing people off is not “woman,” but “president”?  I know I get pissed off when I think about the current president.  Besides that though, the introduction of politics at all into things might tend to make people more angry.  Maybe people aren’t personally upset about those issues, but do expect the government to do more to try to solve them.  Maybe they are libertarians and just get mad when you mention the government.  (Okay, libertarians are mad about everything either way.)  This just doesn’t seem like a study that pinpoints much of anything, and it shouldn’t be played up as proof that Americans are secretly sexist.

So we occasionally get crap in Iowa for electing guys with awkward and suggestive last names (Vilsack, Loebsack), but we really have nothing on New Hampshire.  With their Senate race on the short list of our best pickup opportunities, 1996 candidate Dick Swett is considering throwing his hat in the ring.  I am not making that up.  If only he were a U.S. citizen, Labour MP Ed Balls could make him his running mate for the oval office (or I guess any of these people would work…  at least the living ones).  I think a Balls/Swett ticket would produce the highest youth voter turnout EVER.

…is completely imaginary for people working on campaigns.  But it’s a new mark in vigor for the US House and Senate, where Republicans are both complaining about the rule change and complaining about it not being vigorously enforced.  Ted Sporer, the Polk County Republican Chair, is the most hilarious member of the latter camp, complaining about a supposed campaign promise that was apparently made on December 5th, 28 days after the election was held.  Apparently he has a problem with Democrats only working four days in a couple of the early weeks, (and he might also have a problem with the Martin Luther King Holiday).  Surprisingly enough,  I couldn’t find ANY complaints about the standard Republican 3-day workweek, or the fact that the House this session worked the fewest number of days in at least the past 60 years.

But anyway, the most important effect of the five day work week in Congress is to really put the screws to the Republicans who have gotten fat and lazy in the majority.  It’s surely no fun to work three days a week when you are powerless, and it is going to be even less fun doing it for five.  Republicans like Tom Latham, who have never experienced life in the minority, might find it such a shock that they don’t feel like raising a million dollars to be ignored for two more years.  Here’s hoping for serious earmark reform too, so that it becomes harder for appropriations committee members (like Latham) to buy their elections through pork.

While Democrats picked up two new seats to claim a majority of Iowa’s Congressional delegation, the overall congressional vote was tilted in the Republican’s favor – they won 520,798 votes (50.6%) to our 490,476 (47.7%).  This margin represents less than the margin in just Congressional District 5, but that margin is slated to move on over into at least one of our competitive districts in six years.

A similar result can be seen in Indiana, where Democrats lost the statewide congressional vote while picking up three seats to bring them to a majority.  The only other state with as dramatic results as Iowa and Indiana is New Hampshire, but considering they won their only two Congressional seats, they obviously managed an overall majority as well.  It might just be the fact that Democrats were doing so poorly before the election that the races they weren’t able to compete in – CD 4 and 5 here and 4, 5, and 6 in Indiana – overwhelmed the results of what were targeted, competitive races on both sides.  We’ll get a better idea in 2008, when Republicans are the ones trying to pick off our seats.

It’s about time Iowa had a true community-based blog – one where commenting is not the beginning and end of reader interaction.  On Bleeding Heartland everyone is able to write their own diary, meaning more and better content and a more diverse representation of views from around the state.  The commenting system is also a big improvement over anything else available.  So create an account, write a diary, and let us know what is going on in your corner of the state.