E.J. Dionne writes a wonderfully Springsteen-inspired title column on the rise of populism in the Iowa caucus, Trouble Thunder In The Heartland. The Huckabee half seemed forced and not particularly illuminative. But the discussion of the Democratic race was excellent:

. . . "The richest Americans are getting richer," Edwards said. "How much money do these people need?" Roaring his refrain of "enough is enough," Edwards declared: "America doesn't belong to them. It belongs to us." Us-vs.-them economic rhetoric is often said to be out of date, impractical, even dangerous. But in the closing days of a very tight race, Edwards has his opponents, particularly Barack Obama, scrambling to make sure a trial lawyer from North Carolina does not corner the market on populism.

Is this too little too late from Obama in the Hillary Alternative race?

Obama is vying with Edwards for the non-Clinton vote, and the Illinois senator was on the air yesterday with an Edwards-like television ad assailing the flow of American jobs abroad. Obama spoke last week of "Maytag workers who labored all their lives only to see their jobs shipped overseas; who now compete with their teenagers for $7-an-hour jobs at Wal-Mart." He had heard from seniors "who were betrayed by CEOs who dumped their pensions while pocketing bonuses, and from those who still can't afford their prescriptions because Congress refused to negotiate with the drug companies for the cheapest available price."

The Kumbaya schtick has reached it limits apparently. Too bad Obama campaign strategist Axelrod did not realize that when he could have knocked Edwards out in November.

One of his best columns today:

Yesterday The Times published a highly informative chart laying out the positions of the presidential candidates on major issues. It was, I’d argue, a useful reality check for those who believe that the next president can somehow usher in a new era of bipartisan cooperation.

For what the chart made clear was the extent to which Democrats and Republicans live in separate moral and intellectual universes. . . . All in all, it’s an economic and political environment in which you’d expect Republican politicians, as a sheer matter of calculation, to look for ways to distance themselves from the current administration’s economic policies and record. . . In fact, however . . . — the leading Republican contenders have gone out of their way to assure voters that they will not deviate an inch from the Bush path. Why? Because the G.O.P. is still controlled by a conservative movement that does not tolerate deviations from tax-cutting, free-market, greed-is-good orthodoxy.

. . . There’s a fantasy, widely held inside the Beltway, that men and women of good will from both parties can be brought together to hammer out bipartisan solutions to the nation’s problems. . . . In fact, however, it’s not possible, not given the nature of today’s Republican Party, which has turned men like Mr. McCain and Mr. Romney into hard-line ideologues. On economics, and on much else, there is no common ground between the parties.

People think I am insulting Barack Obama when I say his Kumbaya schtick is a put on. I think it is the only way to give Obama credit. For if he believes it, he is a naive fool who has no business running for President.

Via Yglesias, I kid you not:

[W]hat distinguishes Goldberg from the Sean Hannitys and Michael Savages is a witty intelligence that deals in ideas as well as insults

Here is an example of the wit and ideas according to the reviewer:

In attempting to link Roosevelt to the fascism that enveloped Europe in these years, Goldberg highlights examples like the Civilian Conservation Corps, which offered a paycheck and military discipline to unemployed young men from the cities, and the National Recovery Administration, which was intended to spur industrial production through centralized planning.

Feel the wit. Sheesh. To the reviewer's credit, he basically ends up saying Goldberg is full of it, but my gawd, this passes for wit and engaging in ideas in his mind? Double sheesh.

The latest from the Zogby Iowa tracking poll:

Clinton 30 (31)
Edwards 26 (24)
Obama 26 27)

Here is what Zogby said:

"Edwards had a good day by virtue especially of increasing support among independent voters," Zogby said. Edwards led narrowly among independents over Clinton and Obama. The poll found Clinton's supporters remained the most dedicated with 73 percent saying their support was "very" strong, compared to 66 percent for Edwards and 63 percent for Obama.

Full disclosure, I do not trust Zogby.

Abdul Razzak,a 68 year old Afghan detainee at Guantanamo, has died of colorectal cancer. He was undergoing chemotherapy.

Razzak is the only detainee to die of natural causes -- the other four deaths were suicides.

Razzak was diagnosed in September, and began receiving chemo in October. The Pentagon insists he's a jihadist. From AFP News:

U.S. authorities alleged that Razzak conducted an escort mission for Osama bin Laden and was involved in attempts to assassinate Afghan officials. He denied the accusations.

Here's the summary of evidence against him from his Classified Review Hearing (pdf.) He said he worked with American intelligence, safeguarded the officers, stood guard over them and escorted them "all over the mountains." He wanted to help them with security.

He also said he was a nurse and worked at a hospital for two years, getting the assignment from the Red Cross. He also worked in security for the Afghan government. He told the hearing officers the Taliban had been brutal to him. They jailed him three times. He said he opposes the Taliban and those responsible for September 11. The hearing officers said he was cooperative and educated.

Razzak insisted he was framed by a man named Pasha Khan, and that Khan's nephew, Jan Baz turned him in for a reward.

The hearing officers thought he was being repetitive in his comments. That's what people do when they think they're innocent and no one's listening, they repeat themselves. A quick review of the transcript shows him to be very intent on clearing himself. Now, he'll never get the chance.

Clinton Derangement Syndrome. Exhibit A - Andrew Sullivan. Kevin Drum explains:

Andrew Sullivan [writes:]

Yes, Obama would beat us, bad. . . . But that is not what Democrats want....Hillary knows that her base voters are more filled with anger at Bush than they are with hope for the future and change for all the American people.

Whatever else you think about the Clinton vs. Obama question, this is almost certainly wrong. Among the activist liberal base — the people who are the loudest and angriest about what George Bush has done over the past seven years — support is way stronger for both Obama and John Edwards than for Hillary Clinton.

. . . Conservatives tend to be so blinded by their hatred for Hillary that they're convinced that her liberal supporters are also motivated by hatred. But they aren't. Among activist liberals, Hillary is mostly viewed as as smart and hardworking, but also triangulating and mainstream. She's the candidate of caution and moderation, not the candidate of the haters. The anti-Clinton fever swamp protests too much.

Sully Deranged. Nothing new there.

Iowa remains inscrutable. Big Tent Democrat wrote earlier about the latest Zogby and Mason Dixon polls. McClatchy-MSNBC also released a poll this morning. The poll (pdf)is of 400 likely Democratic caucus goers. The first question asks whom they would vote for if the caucuses were held today.The Answers:

Edwards: 24%
Hillary: 23%
Obama: 22%
Richardson: 12%
Biden: 8%
Dodd: 2%

Only 20% say they might change their mind. On second choices, Edwards is way ahead of Obama and Clinton. Taking the supporters of Richardson, Biden, Dodd and Kucinich collectively, and adding them to the numbers of those already voting for the big three, it looks like this:

Edwards 33%
Obama 26%
Clinton 26%

McClatchy analyzes the poll results:

While the survey shows a virtual statistical tie, it also shows Edwards with some momentum heading into the final days. He's gained 3 percentage points since McClatchy-MSNBC polled Iowa before the holidays, while Clinton lost 4 points and Obama lost 3 points. Also gaining were Richardson and Biden, each picking up 3 points.

More...

David Yepsen of the Des Moines Register was on Howard Kurtz's Reliable Sources this morning. In defense of the Iowa caucuses, he made this point:

This is the first time that political activists around the country have a chance to have their say about who ought to be president. Media people have had our say. The money people have had their say. Now this is grass roots activists. And that is, to me, one of the things that is defensible about this caucus is that it is not typical voters, it is party activists.

They go out on a cold January night. They stand up. They sit around. They talk politics. And so it really is the core of each party. If you look at the kind of people that go to a precinct caucus, they look an awful lot like the same sort of people you see at the national convention.

There are 3 million people in Iowa's 99 counties, but it's expected that only 200,000 will come out to caucus. So the caucuses may not reflect the preferences of the voters in Iowa -- only the preferences of politically active voters.

Just something else to keep in mind.

Update: The Des Moines Register has this article today on key voters.

New Hampshire's Concord Monitor has endorsed Hillary Clinton for President. After outlining what she will do in the beginning of her presidential term, it says:

Hillary Clinton's unique combination of smarts, experience and toughness makes her the best choice to win the November election and truly get things done. Before embarking on an agenda of her or his own, the next American president will be forced to undo the damage of the Bush years: ending the war in Iraq, restoring habeas corpus rights, ending the use of torture, healing New Orleans, restoring America's moral authority around the world..... The next president must also take the lead on a serious effort to slow global warming, a rational policy on illegal immigration and a plan to provide health care to all Americans.

Clinton knows what she wants to accomplish. She knows how Washington works. She has forged alliances with unlikely political partners, and she has waged partisan fights on matters of principle. Her years as first lady and as a U.S. senator have put her at the center of key policy and political battles for a decade and a half. She is prepared for the job.

The paper says Obama does inspire, but he's not the best choice. [More...]

A New York Times editorial today sharply criticizes the Republican candidates for President over immigration. It also calls on the Demoratic candidates to speak out more forcefully for sane and workable immigration reform.

The problem is that the country cannot build a fence or send troops and expect its problems to go away. Huge numbers of illegal immigrants never go anywhere near the border: about 40 percent enter legally and overstay their visas. Nor can the government purge workplaces of illegal workers without doing vast damage to the economy. At some point it must address the 12 million undocumented, who cannot be deported en masse.

The Times frames the questions both sides need to answer: [More....]

What happens on January 4 if Edwards wins, even wins convincingly? How does that play out? I have long believed that Edwards and Obama are competing for the Hillary alternative slot in this contest. The spread and the spin will be important of course but a win is a win and a win for Edwards gives him a leg up over Obama. But what if Obama finishes second? That would obviously be better than finishing third but still would be damaging to Obama in my view. Unless Hillary gets drubbed in Iowa, and that seems unlikely at this point, she is not going away. And now Obama would be at a disadvantage to Edwards in New Hampshire and beyond for the contest to be the Hillary alternative.

In my mind Barack Obama has been saddled with a terrible campaign team, starting with the awful David Axelrod. In November and December, Obama had a real chance to put Edwards away after Edwards made the mistake (and I still feel it was a mistake, Edwards could have been making this surge without riskig his campaign) of attacking Hillary Clinton personally. Edwards dropped, as did Clinton, Obama rose and in fact opened a healthy lead in Iowa. Instead of pressing this advantage and coopting Edwards' themes and occupying his argument to be the Hillary alternative, Obama continued with his muddled KUMBAYA message, allowing Edwards the space he needed to mount the impressive drive he is now in.

More....

Zogby starts his tracking poll today. His first finding, Clinton 31, Obama 27, Edwards 24.

When the second choices of the potentially unviable second tier candidates are taken into account, "the result is Clinton 35.8%, Obama 33.4%, Edwards 30.8%."

I'll be honest. I do not trust Zogby at all. I believe he manipulates his polls. So I leave it up to you folks whether you believe this result.

In a different poll, Mason Dixon finds: Edwards 24, Clinton 23, Obama 22 and RICHARDSON 12. The fact is that these numbers are not in line with any other polls. The numbers are, except for the Richardson number (which is a real outlier), much LOWER for ALL of the candidates. But who knows? Maybe this is the one that got it right. Additionally, Mason Dixon sees second choices leading to a significant Edwards victory. When the potential nonviable support is allocated, the result is Edwards 33, Clinton 26, Obama 26.

What do we make of all this? I believe we are where we were, Edwards surging, Clinton moving up, Obama fading. We'll see what happens from here.

One last thing, Romney is going to win Iowa and, imo, the GOP nomination. Mason Dixon join ARG as having Romney in the lead and Zogby has him in a tie. It is going to be a big MO night for Romney who may end up the biggest story of the night.