Democracy for New Mexico

Obama's Speeches Can Make Me Dewy-Eyed Too, But ....

This is a rather long post, but I hope you'll hang in with it on this New Hampshire primary day.

I'm all for "change." I'm all for "movements." I'm all for this being our "moment." I'm all for "changing the way our government operates." I'm all for stirring, emotive rhetoric. I love to hear Obama speak when he's on his game. He can be a very persuasive and inspiring speaker at times. He's given at least three speeches that were powerhouses: at the Democratic Convention in 2004, at the Jefferson-Jackson Dinner in Iowa this year, and after the results were in for the Iowa Caucus last Thursday.

However, I've also witnessed him give rather boring, banal, low key, blah blah speeches at rallies that have been televised. And his measured demeanor at debates and other more intimate events can be a bit dry. But what bothers me most about his candidacy is that he speaks almost entirely about process and generic values instead of substance.

What's Behind Obama's Lofty Rhetoric?
Change, hope, unity. Great words. But what do they mean in terms of his plans to counter the awful juggernaut against individual liberties and working and middle class economics that's being conducted by powerful forces in Washington, on Wall Street and in multi-national board rooms? We have almost no idea based on what Obama is saying or what he has said or done in the past.

We do know that he's for nuclear power, that he backed a bill promoting energy from pseudo-"clean" liquified coal, that he's taken significant amounts of money from Wall Street, the corporate and lobbying elite and PACs. We know his health reform plans allows opt outs that will almost certainly undermine its effectiveness. We know he gave support to the Peru trade bill while saying he's against NAFTA, and that he's recently been employing Repub framing and bashing some progressives like Paul Krugman. You don't hear much populist sentiment from Barack. Open Left's Matt Stoller has more on this aspect of Obama's actions:

Since declaring for President, this person has called Social Security a 'crisis', attacked trial lawyers, associated unapologetically with vicious homophobes, portrayed Gore and Kerry as excessively polarizing losers, boasted as his central achievement an irrelevant ethics bill, ran against the DC establishment while taking huge amounts of cash from DC, undermined Ned Lamont in 2006, criticized NAFTA while voting for a NAFTA-style trade agreement, compiled opposition research on the most effective liberal pundit in the country, refused to promise that American troops would be out of Iraq by 2013, and endorsed the central plank of the Bush-Cheney foreign policy doctrine, the war on terror.

And, of course, many of us have seen the Amy Goodman's story of business-as-usual advisers on foreign policy that are on the Obama team (and Hillary's and Edwards' as well). Granted, not one of the Dem candidates is without some baggage or a number of positions we'd wish they'd sharpen or change. But I think it's important that we at least know the extent of these and bring them into the equation before locking in one of them as our nominee, no matter how impressive (or not) they are on the stump.

I know I'll be tagged as one of the "cynics" now deemed so out of date in the new "post-partisan" era, but I say beware -- let's take it a bit slower.

Our Own Private Projection Screen
Obama is running an incredibly effective campaign by saying almost nothing but fuzzy wuzzy buzz words. He's putting himself out there as a kind of blank screen, available for the projections of everyone's very own version of the new change revolution. He doesn't leave anyone out, whether Repub, Independent or Dem, whatever their gender, race or ethnicity. He tries not to offend anyone, except maybe those who've been made combative by at least eight years of assaults on our person, our civil liberties, our economic livelihoods and just about everything else that matters. Reacting with anger or replying in kind to the battering coming from BushCo's side of the aisle is considered so, you  know, PARTISAN. So, you know, out of date -- like love bead, protests and speaking truth to power.

I say beware -- let's think this through. Try to picture raising the level of discourse with the forces behind and supportive of Guantanamo, torture, criminal trade deals, hatemongering on immigration issues and the subprime mortgage scandal. Try to picture being accommodating and inclusive with them, having them serve within a Democratic president's cabinet. Try to picture genteely negotiating with insurance and drug company execs and lobbyists to get a fair deal for the people. Hard, isn't it?

Should one of our top priorities be to make country club Republicans feel better about the atrocities they've helped to elect and enact over the past eight years -- just so they could keep their taxes low? Are we to sidle up with charm to those who have been branding GLBT folks like me as abominations that shouldn't have equal rights under the law? What kind of bipartisan agreement or accommodation can there be on issues and conflicts loaded with the kind of explosive consequences that once brought our nation a civil war and are now creating the pathways to an eternal state of war and constant surveillence?

A Little History
Open Left's Paul Rosenberg riffs on the theme of "bi-partisanship":

Democrats have been trying to make nice-nice with Republicans in order to put an end to polarization and divisiveness at least since the days of Jimmy Carter. The results have been quite satisfactory... for the Republicans. Barack Obama says that this time it will be different. If he means to inspire us, that's one thing. But if that's really his game plan, then he is reading from speeches given by Lucy to Charlie Brown: this time, for sure, she won't pull that football away at the last moment.

Okay, folks, there are so many examples, it's impossible to choose. Should we look at:

(A) Jimmy Carter takes "bipartisan" advice from Henry Kissinger, lets the deposed Shah into the country, and precipitates a hostage crisis that costs him the presidency-with a little help from the 1980 Reagan/Bush team, which is not above a little bit of treason, if that's what it takes to get elected.

(B) Michael Dukakis refuses to get down and dirty. "It's about competence, not ideology," he explains-perhaps the most incompetent thing a presidential candidate has said since Hebert Hoover adopted the theme song "Happy Days Are Here Again" in the midst of the Great Depression. In Ohio, Senator Howard Metzenbaum ran as a full-throated economic populist and cruised to a 57-43 victory, while Dukakis ran away from the "liberal" label, and lost badly, 55-45. [Ohio SOS Raw Totals]

(C) Bill Clinton ignores a whole raft of Republican scandals [Iran-Contra, Iraqgate , October Surprise, etc.] in an attempt to make peace with the Republicans. He caves on a whole series of issues, and-voila!--the Republicans win control of Congress for the first time in 40 years, and launch a scorched earth campaign to drive him from office.

(D) Al Gore plays by Marquess of Queensberry rules, and has the Presidency stolen from him.

(E) John Kerry refuses to fight back when , then starts to think better of it, until John McCain tells him "no fair hitting back." Then he reverses his earlier pledge to fight to ensure that every vote is counted.

Can't We All Just Get Along?
Obama's vision of a calm, friendly, fair-minded rennaissance of American politics is an alluring one. Dreams of Eden always are, especially in an America that clings to Walt Disney-esq images of itself, its motives and its goals. Imperialism, empire, economic criminality and a surveillence state are ugly and brutal concepts. Envisioning a political scene full of Bambi-like good government types is appealing and comforting. But what do you think the next eight years will bring in terms of problems we won't be able to avoid confronting? Opportunities for abundant nicey nice, or continuing and increasingly ominous challenges to the very basis of our democracy and planetary survival?

Will we need the skills of someone unafraid to get their hands dirty or someone who seems to feel uncomfortable -- or even above the fray -- when confrontations arise? I do know that genuinely dark forces are afoot in many places in today's global landscape. There are corporatist Robber Barons everywhere, calling way too many shots solely for their own gain. Does Obama understand how determined and entrenched they've become -- and the kind of fortitude and sustained battles it will require to take them on with any degree of success?

Let's Take a Breath
Don't get me wrong. I, too, got chills listening to his last Iowa speech. I, too, am thrilled with the prospects and historic breakthroughs presented by an Obama candidacy. There's much I admire about Barack Obama, and he may well turn out to be as good as the rhetoric he's using. But how do we know at this point? Before we all get in line to follow the pied piper, I think we ought to demand to know much more about what he really plans to do and how he intends to go about it. Most of us are positively yearning for a real leader, a visionary of sorts who can carry us into a future of critical paradigm change and enlightened problemsolving. Obama is putting himself out there as the one who can fulfill these needs, but what kind of specifics has he provided so far? How has he been tested?

I hope we can keep our options open for now. I'd like to see this race play out among two or three candidates until well after Super Tuesday. We all deserve an opportunity to reassess their strengths and weaknesses once the initial rush of Iowa and New Hampshire starts fading, don't we? There is so damned much at stake.

Hillary Shows Emotion on Eve of NH Primary

Hillary Clinton at a coffee shop appearance in Portsmouth, NH today. Most new polls are giving Obama a double-digit lead over Clinton in the state. Maybe if Clinton had run a less controlled and more spontaneously human campaign, she wouldn't be in this position now. Given the positive responses voters are giving to the lofty, nonspecific rhetoric of Obama, maybe both Hillary and Edwards should be talking more like dreamers and less like policy wonks.

Whatever we may think of any of the Dem candidates, it's obvious most of them have been pushing themselves to the limit. They'e exhausted and hoarse and showing it. The crazy caucus-primary schedule is brutal, especially the tiny gap of only five days between Iowa and New Hampshire. Is this really a sensible way to pick a nominee?

I think of the candidates working since this summer or even longer to get to this day -- day after day of events, media interviews, travel and strategy sessions -- and I have a hard time understanding how they do it. Or maybe even why.

This and That on NH Dem Primary

So do you think Kennedy would be considered
too "angry" and "partisan" today?

• The Clinton campaign just doesn't get it:

Clinton is trying to cope with Obama’s momentum by emphasizing her appeal to younger voters and by taking more questions at her events. The Clinton campaign sent out a news release — titled, “Clinton Reaches Out To Young New Hampshire Voters” — announcing roundtables she’s holding with young undecided voters and the launch of an “Ask Hillary” feature on Facebook.

• The Edwards campaign says he'll stay in the race until the Dem Convention in Denver in August. Today, he's got Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon stumping for him in several New Hampshire towns.

• Latest polling by CNN/WMUR:

Obama 39%
Clinton 29%
Edwards 16%
Richardson 7%
Kucinich 2% 
Someone else 1%
No opinion 5%

• Who do the lobbyists like, according to Open Secrets?

Of course if you look around at other categories at the Open Secrets page, you'll see that both Clinton and Obama have received huge donations from individuals connected to big corporations.

• Richardson and has the endorsement of two NH newspapers. Check out on the hardworking Richardson campaign and be sure to click through to Blue Hampshire's video about their snow removal project inside a town rotary in NH. A real snow job!

• The Santa Fe New Mexican's Steve Terrell has analysis and lots of photos from following the Richardson Campaign in Iowa and New Hampshire.

• The other Big Bill (Clinton) is sometimes attracting, smaller, rather sleepy crowds in NH stumping for his wife, according to the NY Times.

• The elephant in the room:

Yesterday's Dem and Repub ABC NH Debates

Short and sweet reaction: Arent' you glad you're a Democrat? Seeing the candidates from each party engage one another back to back provided such a clear contrast between inclusive, forward-looking thinking and hackneyed, shortsighted phoniness that I can't believe anyone could watch the whole thing and still come out admitting to being a Republican this year....

As the Obama "movement" continues to gain strength, I think it's worth pondering what Chris Bowers at Open Left has to say about Hillary's chances for success -- even if she loses in New Hampshire and South Carolina -- and how a California showdown may be brewing.

(Updated) NH Debates Tonight for Dem and Repub Prez Candidates

UPDATE 1/6/08: Transcripts and video clips of the debate are now available at ABC News. I'm hearing the debates will be rebroadcast today at 5:00 PM MST in Albuquerque, but I can't find it in online TV listings so I'm not sure about that.
*****************
ABC will air back-to-back, 90-minute debates with Democratic and Republican presidential candidates tonight at St. Anselm College in Manchester, NH. They'll be moderated by Charles Gibson, chief news anchor of ABC News, and co-hosted by ABC, WMUR and Facebook.

Each debate will be divided into two parts. During the first 45 minutes, Gibson will select three prominent issues to promote a dialogue. The candidates will be seated and encouraged to talk to each other, not just to the cameras. The second half will be a more traditional format, with Gibson and WMUR-TV political director Scott Spradling asking questions on a variety of topics.

Mike Huckabee, John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney and Ron Paul will participate in the Repub debate, which will be broadcast starting at 6:00 PM in New Mexico. Slated to begin at around 7:45 PM, the Dem debate will feature John Edwards, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Bill Richardson. Both Joe Biden and Chris Dodd have withdrawn from the race.

ABC has Dems Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel and Repub Duncan Hunter from the debates based on criteria developed by the network. Candidates had to meet at least one of three criteria to participate: place first through fourth in Iowa, poll 5 percent or higher in one of the last four major New Hampshire surveys, or poll 5 percent or higher in one of the last four major national surveys.

On Friday, Kucinich filed a complaint with the FCC in response to his exclusion, arguing that ABC is violating equal-time provisions by keeping him out of the debate. He noted that ABC's parent, Walt Disney Co., had contributed to campaigns involving the four Democrats who were invited. "ABC should not be the first primary," the Ohio congressman said in papers filed at the Federal Communications Commission.

There will probably be a few minutes where both Republican and Democratic candidates are on the same stage. The auditorium will be emptied between debates and a new audience brought in. Diane Sawyer and George Stephanopoulos will lead ABC's coverage, which runs from 6:00 to 10:00 PM in New Mexico.

The New Hampshire primary will be held next Tuesday, January 8, 2008.

Iowa Results: Change, Youth, Women, Money

Obama with the evening's most moving speech

Off the top of my head:

• About 67% of Iowa Dem caucusgoers voted for progressive change candidates (Obama and Edwards) over the status quo, business as usual triangulator (Clinton).

• According to so-called "entrance polls," almost a quarter of the Dem participants were under the age of 30 -- and of that group Obama got 57%, Edwards 14% and Clinton 11%.

• Obama captured the majority of women voters even tho Hillary targeted this demographic very heavily.

• Hillary did better with union members and low income voters than Edwards, despite his populist messaging.

• About 235,000 Dems are estimated to have participated last night, versus 124,000 in 2004. Only 114,000 Repubs attended caucuses, and about 60% of them were self-defined born again Christians or evangelicals. Among these voters, Huckabee got about 45%.

• Repub Mitt Romney outspent his rivals by huge margins and had a much larger paid staff, yet Romney finished a dismal second. Edwards beat Clinton by one point despite spending only about $4.2 3.2 million on ads to her $12 7.2 million or so. (Obama spent approximately $9 million on ads).

• Candidates with a heavily populist economic message -- Mike Huckabee and John Edwards -- had strong showings.

• According to anecdotal reports, large numbers of Independents and Republicans switched over last night to vote in the Dem caucuses, and most of them were caucusing for Obama. About 40% of registered voters in New Hampshire are Independents, and predictions are that the majority will back Obama, with the rest going for McCain.

• Sen. Chris Dodd and Sen. Joe Biden withdrew from the race last night. They each garnered less than 1% in "viable" support. Gov. Bill Richardson finished with viable supporters that numbered about 2%, but has announced he'll stay in the race at least through New Hampshire. (I originally reported that Mike Gravel had also withdrawn from the race, based on a statement by Keith Olbermann, but today the Gravel campaign insisted their campaign was still alive.)

• Four Dem candidates will participate in Saturday's debate in New Hampshire -- Obama, Edwards, Clinton and Richardson.

• New Hampshire's primary is set for next Tuesday, January 8th, which doesn't give candidates with disappointing finishes in Iowa much time to regroup.

• I thought the speeches of Obama, Edwards and Clinton last night were all very good, but that Obama's was a soaring, moving, historic masterpiece. It gave me goose bumps and even brought a few tears to my eyes -- and I was pulling for Edwards last night.

My prediction: Obama will win New Hampshire and South Carolina by significant margins and go on to sweep the majority of states on Super Duper Tuesday on February 5th. My gut is telling me there's an almost unstoppable new energy afoot in the electorate, especially among its younger members, and Obama is a master at feeding it with inspiring rhetoric and, yes, hope.

I think people are clearly seeking an uplift in candidates and their rhetoric at this critical juncture, not more cynicism. They seem to be very tired of looking back, of politics as usual, of positioning that reeks of phoniness and political expediency and of Beltway-style conventional wisdom. I'm really starting to believe that, as Obama says, a majority of Americans think it's time to turn the page.

Tracking Iowa Caucus Results (Live Updates) - 7:30 PM, Projected Winners Obama & Huckabee

The winner of the Democratic Iowa Caucuses 2008

The winner of the Republican Iowa Caucuses 2008

UPDATE 8:30 PM: OK, this is my last update. I'm off to put my feet up and stare at the tube. You're on your own!

Senator Barack Obama: 37.52%
Senator John Edwards: 29.87%
Senator Hillary Clinton: 29.41%
Governor Bill Richardson: 2.10%
Senator Joe Biden: 0.94%
Uncommitted: 0.13%
Senator Chris Dodd: 0.02%
Precincts Reporting: 1721 of 1781

UPDATE 8:02 PM: The question is, will Obama's momentum carry him to a win in New Hampshire, where all those Independents vote? Polling consistently shows Independents like Obama, not Clinton. Will Edwards hang on through New Hampshire hoping for a miracle? Will Richardson call it quits? About 60% of caucus voters on the Repub side were reportedly evangelical Christians and most of them voted to make Huckabee the winner.

Senator Barack Obama: 37.21%
Senator John Edwards: 29.97%
Senator Hillary Clinton: 29.57%
Governor Bill Richardson: 2.15%
Senator Joe Biden: 0.94%
Uncommitted: 0.12%
Senator Chris Dodd: 0.03%
Precincts Reporting: 1650 of 1781

Earlier updates are below the fold.

UPDATE 7:47 PM: Clinton in 3rd by a minuscule margin. Youth turnout big. Dems get twice the turnout of Repubs:

Senator Barack Obama: 36.86%
Senator John Edwards: 30.15%
Senator Hillary Clinton: 29.87%
Governor Bill Richardson: 2.07%
Senator Joe Biden: 0.91%
Uncommitted: 0.10%
Senator Chris Dodd: 0.03%
Precincts Reporting: 1562 of 1781

UPDATE 7:36 PM: Razor-thin margin between Edwards and Hillary for 2nd.

Senator Barack Obama: 36.37%
Senator John Edwards: 30.47%
Senator Hillary Clinton: 30.15%
Governor Bill Richardson: 1.96%
Senator Joe Biden: 0.93%
Uncommitted: 0.09%
Senator Chris Dodd: 0.03%
Precincts Reporting: 1448 of 1781

UPDATE 7:27 PM: NBC proclaims Obama the winner! So does CNN.

Senator Barack Obama: 35.26%
Senator John Edwards: 30.99%
Senator Hillary Clinton: 30.78%
Governor Bill Richardson: 1.82%
Senator Joe Biden: 1.02%
Uncommitted: 0.11%
Senator Chris Dodd: 0.03%
Precincts Reporting: 1316 of 1781

UPDATE 7:20 PM: Obama hanging in with a slim lead. Entrance polling had about half the Dems saying their most important factor in choosing was an ability to bring about change.

Senator Barack Obama: 34.95%
Senator John Edwards: 31.24%
Senator Hillary Clinton: 31.02%
Governor Bill Richardson: 1.68%
Senator Joe Biden: 0.97%
Uncommitted: 0.10%
Senator Chris Dodd : 0.03%
Precincts Reporting: 1173 of 1781

UPDATE 7:10 PM: More than half the precincts in. Talk about a tight race! If this keeps up I doubt that Richardson will be "viable" in many precincts, which means he can urge his supporters to Obama (or whoever) and be a sort of kingmaker....

Senator Barack Obama: 34.06%
Senator John Edwards: 31.71%
Senator Hillary Clinton: 31.45%
Governor Bill Richardson: 1.76%
Senator Joe Biden: 0.94%
Senator Chris Dodd: 0.05%
Uncommitted: 0.03%
Precincts Reporting: 923 of 1781

UPDATE 7:00 PM: Wow, these results are coming in quickly. Must be mostly small, rural precincts. Reports that turnout is high.

Senator Barack Obama: 33.20%
Senator John Edwards: 32.09%
Senator Hillary Clinton: 31.77%
Governor Bill Richardson: 1.79%
Senator Joe Biden: 1.02%
Senator Chris Dodd: 0.07%
Uncommitted: 0.05%
Precincts Reporting: 630 of 1781

Huckabee Projected Repub Winner
CNN (and now MSNBC) has projected Huckabee to be the winner on the Repub side! There's no wheeling and dealing at Repub caucuses - one person one vote:

Huckabee 7,809 35%
Romney 5,355 24% 0
Thompson 3,178 14% 0
McCain 2,638 12% 0
Paul 2,425 11% 0
Giuliani 830 4% 0
Hunter 72 0% 0
25% of precincts in

6:30 PM MST: For some reason, the Iowa Dem Party already has some results up:

Senator John Edwards: 36.37%
Senator Hillary Clinton: 31.56%
Senator Barack Obama: 28.02%
Governor Bill Richardson: 1.97%
Senator Joe Biden: 1.09%
Senator Chris Dodd: 0.57%
Uncommitted: 0.42%
Precincts Reporting: 64 of 1781

(Percentages are State Delegate Equivalents.)

What do they mean? Not a whole helluva lot at this point, but it's a start ....

Media/Online Coverage of Tonight's Iowa Caucuses

Results: Democratic Caucuses or Republican Caucuses

Coverage/Info:

• Air America: Team coverage of the Iowa Democratic and Republican presidential caucus results from 6:00 PM to 11:00 PM Mountain. AAR Senior Political Correspondent David Bender will anchor the coverage with Air America President Mark Green, along with live updates and analysis from Rachel Maddow, Thom Hartmann, Lionel, Arianna Huffington, Sam Seder, Ron Reagan, Richard Greene, Jon Elliott, as well as special guests ranging from DNC Chairman Howard Dean to ABC's George Stephanopoulos.
• C-SPAN1: Live coverage starting at 5:00 PM Mountain, online live stream and cable TV
• C-SPAN2: Live coverage starting at 5:00 PM Mountain, online live stream and cable TV
• C-SPAN Radio: Live coverage of results from 8 to 10 PM Mountain, online live stream and XM Radio
• CSPAN's Campaign Network website
• CNN Election Center 2008
• MSNBC Decision '08
• DesMoinesRegister.com
• IowaCaucus.com
• Democratic Caucus Info
• Republican Caucus Info

Richardson Looking to Knock Out Edwards in Iowa Caucuses?

Two sources are now reporting that Gov. Bill Richardson's campaign plans to direct supporters in Iowa caucus precincts where he gets less than the 15% "viability" threshold to switch their votes to Obama in the second round. Both the Idaho Independent and the New York Times political blog, The Caucus are essentially sticking with their stories, despite a denial from Richardson campaign officials and "clarifications" from the Obama campaign.

In a previous post I had speculated on the possibility of Richardson urging his supporters to switch to Hillary in Iowa precincts where he didn't gain viability on the first round. After all, the Clintons and Richardson go way back. Now it looks like Richardson may be pursuing a more indirect way of supporting Clinton (and himself) by first trying to help push Edwards out of the race.

According to The Caucus:

Obama’s campaign has reached an agreement with Bill Richardson for the second-choice votes of Richardson supporters in caucuses where the New Mexico governor can’t clear the threshold for competition, according to a senior Obama campaign adviser. The adviser estimated that the deal puts Mr. Obama in position to claim support from roughly half of the 15 percent of Democratic caucus-goers expected to support second-tier candidates.

In return, the Obama adviser said, Obama forces will lend support to Mr. Richardson at caucuses where Mr. Obama turns out more backers than he needs to win any additional delegates. Mr. Richardson drew 6 percent of the vote in the most recent Des Moines Register Poll, trailing Mr. Obama’s 32 percent, Hillary Clinton’s 25 percent and John Edwards’ 24 percent.

However, in a later update, they reported on a clarification from the Obama campaign:

David Plouffe, Obama campaign manager, responding to the report that Mr. Obama had reached an agreement for reciprocal support with Bill Richardson’s campaign, insisted the campaign had reached “no formal arrangements” with any of his rivals. But he said that “there are certainly places where our precinct captains want to work with Richardson” supporters — to gain second-choice support in cases where Mr. Richardson doesn’t reach the threshold to compete, or to lend Mr. Richardson surplus backers in instances where they can’t yield any additional Obama delegates.

The Iowa Independent had this to say:

Gov. Bill Richardson's campaign is expected to direct its supporters to caucus for Sen. Barack Obama in the second round of voting at Thursday's caucuses in precincts where he is not viable.  Two sources familiar with the plan told Iowa Independent that the New Mexico governor's organizers have been instructed to direct supporters to Obama in the places where they have not reached the 15 percent threshold for viability.

Richardson, whose poll numbers in Iowa have hovered near 10 percent since June, may need a solid fourth-place finish in the caucuses to continue his campaign.  And he is best served by directing support away from former Sen. John Edwards, who consistently polls between him and the two national front-runners, Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton, in national and early state polls.

The Independent later added this update:

Joaquin Guerra, Richardson's national Online Director, denies that any plans are in place to direct supporters to Obama on the second round of voting.  Still, our sources remain sure of what they told us, and we are confident that they do not carry ulterior motives that would cause them to lie.

Edwards has bet the farm on a win in Iowa and, if he doesn't win there, he'll face an uphill battle for New Hampshire votes, as well as more campaign cash. Even if Clinton finishes second to Obama, she has the clout and funds to carry on strongly in New Hampshire. Meanwhile, if Edwards falters badly or withdraws, Richardson may have a chance to move up into the top three heading into the New Hampshire primary on January 8th.

If the reports are true, it's ironic, isn't it, that both ultra-progressive Dennis Kucinich and moderate Bill Richardson will be trying to help Obama in their nonviable precincts? Strategy trumps ideology.

Meanwhile, several leaders on the left are lining up behind Edwards. First came Ralph Nader, then Michael Moore, then Norman Solomon, a longtime writer, media critic, and antiwar activist. Rather late in the process though, in this election cycle anyway. Round and round we go. Anything can happen in the caucus rooms tonight, but the Richardson strategy that's being leaked makes a lot of sense to me. Tonight, we should know for sure.

Also see Heath Haussamen's take on the rumored horse trading for votes at tonight's Iowa caucuses, as well as analysis at .

Finally: Hawkeye State Caucuses Set for Tomorrow

Gov. Richardson in snowy Iowa*

Has the campaigning leading to tomorrow night's Iowa caucuses been going on for years? Feels like it to me. I imagine it feels even longer to those who've been working the state for so long. If I hear the phrase "latest polling shows" one more time, I may start screeching. Polling, schmolling -- the truth is that nobody really knows what will happen when Iowa Dems (and many Independents) gather in 1,781 precinct meetings across the state to choose a favorite among Democratic presidential candidates. In the last analysis, it's a roll of the dice in many ways.

An optimistic projection of how many will show up to participate in the Dem meetings would equate to about 25% of those eligible, or about 150,000 people. In my view, this relative handful of folks has managed to accumulate way too much clout in designating the front-runners in the race. Iowans obviously don't think so. It must be nice to be courted so carefully by all the candidates, and the state's hotels, restaurants, TV stations and other businesses benefit mightily from the months of campaigning. Unfortunately, as Markos lays out in this post on Daily Kos, the Dem caucus process in Iowa is also very undemocratic and elitist. Not a good way to pick a nominee while the rest of us sit here on our hands.

Viable or Nonviable
Besides turnout, one of the critical factors in determining whether a candidate will have a strong showing is to whom the supporters of "nonviable" candidates will turn as a second choice. If a candidate gets less than 15% or so of those attending a precinct caucus, they're deemed "nonviable" and the candidate won't earn any delegates from that precinct. The supporters of a nonviable candidate can either walk away without their votes counting for a particular candidate, or switch to another candidate who has passed the viability threshhold in that precinct. That's where all the wheeling and dealing comes in, and candidates who have strong organizations at the precinct level can sometimes work wonders in convincing caucus-goers on the spot to pick them for a second choice.

The nonviable candidates in a precinct can also have a powerful influence in the second choices of their supporters. For instance, last time out in Iowa in 2004, Dick Gephardt encouraged many of his supporters to switch to Kerry in precincts where he wasn't viable. Kucinich urged his supporters to go with Edwards. This year, Kucinich has announced that he'd like his voters to move their support to Obama as a second choice. This post on Wampum provides an excellent dissection of how the process works, written by someone who was a convenor at similarly structured caucuses in Portland, Maine in 2004.

Will Richardson Urge Supporters to Pick Hillary as Second Choice?
I'll be very interested to learn where Bill Richardson will point his supporters in precincts where he's not viable. If he urges them to move into the Clinton column, we can surmise that his strongly antiwar strategy may have been waged, at least in part, as a sort of stalking horse effort to gain supporters who might ultimately benefit Hillary. He'd be taking votes from Obama, Edwards and other antiwar candidates if he sends them to Clinton despite her unapologetic vote for an Iraq invasion.

Clinton can use all the second choice votes she can muster. According to a column by Charles Hurt in the New York Post:

Heading into the final day of campaigning before Iowa votes tomorrow, Hillary Rodham Clinton still faces one of her thorniest problems in her bid for the White House. Although she has a considerable base of devoted fans in Iowa, she is not well liked by those Democrats supporting other candidates.

Of the other Democrats who plan to caucus tomorrow and vote for other candidates, Clinton is the second choice of just 15 percent, according to a new poll. Barack Obama is the second choice of 22 percent and John Edwards is the second choice of 30 percent of Iowa Democrats, according to the Reuters poll.

If Richardson should decide to urge his supporters in his nonviable precincts to support Clinton -- and they follow his recommendation -- he could become a sort of kingmaker in terms of bolstering Clinton's numbers. We all know how close Richardson has been to the Clintons during the course of his career in Washington. Bartering at the precinct level might also help Richardson's chances for being selected as Hillary's VP candidate, or of earning a plum appointment should Hillary become our next President. Definitely something to watch for if the Richardson campaign's of a surprisingly strong showing for their candidate turn out to be just wishful thinking.

Small and Large Precincts Can Have Similar Clout
Another oddity in the Iowa Democratic caucuses is that it's beneficial to have support throughout the state's 99 counties and 1,781 precincts. Because of a complicated system used for apportioning delegates, a candidate gets no extra benefit from overwhelming support in a given precinct. In other words, caucus meetings with few participants in rural parts of the state can sometimes wield about as much clout in terms of delegates earned as larger urban caucuses with many more attendees.

Something to keep in mind: No candidate finishing worse than third in the Iowa caucuses has ever gone on to win their party's nomination. One thing is certain -- Gov. Bill Richardson and his supporters have worked their butts off in Iowa. We'll finally get to find out what all those hours of sweat equity will bring on what's forecast to be a bitterly cold winter's night in Iowa.

*Photo of Bill Richardson by David Negrete. Click on image for larger version.