CNN projects. 37% for Obama, 30% for Clinton, 30% for Edwards.

Given the second choice deals with Kucinch and Richardson, it appears the here was basically a tie in first choices. But since the Entrance Poll results were never given, I can not know.

The DMR Gold Standard Poll remains intact.

(Speaking for me only) Joe Trippi on MSNBC makes an utter fool of himself. He attacks Hillary Clinton an STILL ignores that Barack Obama cleaned Edwards' clock in the battle to be the Hillary Alternative race.

More...

For some reason, NONE of the networks reported the entrance poll other than to say that Clinton and Obama leading with Edwards trailing. The actual results of the entrance poll results never were given.

I have no idea why. As for the actual results, they have shown a three way tie with 40 A 4 point Obama lead in a close 3 way race with close to 69% of the precincts reporting.

Right now I must admit I have no idea what is going on or what has happened. The reporting tonight has been as bad as I have ever sen it. Not excepting Keith Olberman.

Huckabee wins NBC says. Due to the tightness of the Dem race and the size of Huckabee's victory, it turns out Huckabee becomes a bigger story than one would have thought.

Update [2008-1-3 20:38:37 by Big Tent Democrat]: CNN - 56% women, 26% Independents. Axelrod says anecdotal of evidence of over 200,000 turnout. No idea if Axelrod knows or is blowing smoke.

Half are first time caucusgoers and a ton of older women. Singer says Entrance polls says Clinton 36, Obama 31.

Via Todd Beeton:

130,000 Iowans expected to vote in Democratic caucus; 80,000 expected to vote in Republican caucus.

Keith Olbermann just said Obama and Clinton leading in Entrance Polls. Apparently too close to call.

Edwards 3rd.

Update [2008-1-3 20:7:59 by Big Tent Democrat]:Huckabee and Romney apparently close according to exit polls.

In case you did not know. Just compared her to Freddy Krueger. Compare, as others have, to how all McCain needs is well NOTHING, in Iowa to be the Comeback Kid. It would be funny if it was not so pathetic.

One thing I have noticed watching the coverage, NOT ONE NETWORK has focused on the most important issue tonight - will Independents and Republicans turn out for Obama. Tweety even said that if Hillary gets 30% that means 7 of 10 Democrats will have rejected her. forget the fact that a vote for Obama is NOT likely to be seen be all as a vote against Hillary, the DMR poll says that 45% of caucusgoers will NOT be Democrats!

And poor Edwards. Peter Fenn said that EVEN IF EDWARDS WINS he is in deep trouble. Oy!

Obama and McCain the clear Media Darlings tonight no matter what. Ah the Media.

As Tom Petty says, the waiting is the hardest part. Doors open in two hours to the caucuses. Will independent voters turn out in droves to vote for a Democrat? Will the youth vote materialize? Will there really be an unprecedented number of first-time caucus goers? Will Hillary use all of her 5,000 drivers to get her supporters to their caucus venues? Who will the second tier candidates throw their support to?

Jane of Firedoglake and I have three caucuses on our list and will live-blog from whichever we end up at. After the caucuses, we'll be at the Convention Center to watch the results come in real-time with the other 2,500 journalists. Both of us will have desk space with electrical outlets and internet connections.

More...

The networks will employ entrance polls from Edison Research (you can't exit poll a caucus) tonight in Iowa. As Todd Beeton notes, this provides a strange dynamic in that we will have entrance polling data analyzed on television BEFORE the caucuses are completed. Stoller opines, correctly in my view, that:

I'm starting to think that the entrance poll will determine the media narrative after Iowa, not the final caucus results. If someone wins the entrance poll, but loses after second-choices are allocated, both the campaign and the media will point that out in pretty much every write-up of the caucuses.

But what of the things the Media will talk about before the caucus is over? Turnout will be the main thing. I believe they will talk about what percentage of the caucus goers are Democrats, Independents and Republicans. If you have been reading me, you know that I believe that Obama's win will depend on historic Independent and Republican participation in these caucuses. We will know if that happened based on these entrance polls. In essence, I believe we will know what will happen based on that result, which we will know BEFORE the caucuses are even finished.

While we're waiting for the caucuses to start in a few hours, here's some short video clips I took yesterday of Hillary Clinton in Cedar Rapids. The first is about her successful bill to get medical insurance for the National Guard.

This next one is about caregivers and medical insurance.

[Clips since removed]

Bill Richardson was easily the worst candidate of this cycle and he ends his campaign tonight with an appropriately hilarious Keystone Kops routine. First, John Harwood of the NYTimes, a serious guy, reports:

After earlier winning the support of Dennis Kucinich, 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 [It is David Pflouffe, me talking not Harwood. How do I know? Becuase in the update he went on the record to say there was an "informal arrangement"]. . . . But the specter of backroom deal-making could also raise questions about Mr. Obama’s stance as an opponent of traditional politics. The national spokesman for Mr. Obama’s campaign, Bill Burton, said word of a deal “isn’t true.”

I believe it is true now, and a useless deal it is. If it were not true, Richardson would be denouncing Obama's campaign for this. They are not. Marc Ambinder reports:

John Mellencamp singing "Our Country" at the John Edwards event in Des Moines last night. And here's Elizabeth Edwards introducing her beaming husband.

Update: Here's Mellencamp singing "Pink Houses."

Update: Also check out Jane's post on the Edwards event last night and Huckabee event the night before.

[Videos since removed]

The choice of John Durham to lead the investigation of destroyed CIA interrogation videotapes appears to be sound:

Several defense lawyers compared Durham to respected U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald of the Northern District of Illinois. "He's Fitzgerald with a sense of humor," said lawyer Hugh O'Keefe of Connecticut.

The question is whether Durham can be as effective as Fitzgerald, in the absence of the independence and resources that Fitzgerald had as special counsel:

Mr. Mukasey pointedly did not designate Mr. Durham as a special counsel, in effect refusing to bow to pressure from Congressional Democrats to appoint an independent prosecutor with the same broad legal powers that were given to Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the special counsel who was appointed in 2003 to lead the investigation into the disclosure of a C.I.A. officer’s identity. ... As special counsel, Mr. Fitzgerald had the authority of the attorney general for the matters under investigation.

Mr. Durham will report to the deputy attorney general, an office being held temporarily by Craig S. Morford. Mr. Durham will have the powers of the United States attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, a jurisdiction that includes C.I.A. headquarters.

The powers of a U.S. Attorney are formidable, but it would be a reassuring sign if Durham didn't have to report to a deputy AG.

Stoiller riffs on Atrios piece and adds this interesting tidbit from a conversation with an Iowan.:

[H]e said that he hopes that Obama and Clinton can run on the same ticket, and if they can't get along and do that in a bipartisan way, he'll be disillusioned with politics.

It is kind illuminating isn't it? This guy seems to think Clinton and Obama are in different parties and if they can get together we can achieve "bipartisanship." My question is who does he think the Republican is?

I post this for your interest but the poll itself is hard to understand:

Obama 34 (22)
Edwards 33 (29)
Clinton 32 (30)

I guess it assigns second choices but apparently Obama gains the most from this and it is a one day poll. Looks like some number cooking to make its numbers more Obama friendly in light of the DMR poll results to me. In addition, it shows no advantage for Obama over Edwards among Indies and actually virtually no effect from Independent voters. Looks like a sloppy bit of butt covering to me. Who knows?