Chris Bowers has an interesting post on the second choices in Iowa and the deals the candidates might strike. First a quick primer on why this matters.

In Iowa, Democrats operate under one of the most undemocratic systems one could imagine. There is no secret ballot AND if your choice does not reach 15% in a PARTICULAR precinct, your vote does not count. Frankly, this is all outrageous and should not be countenanced. But because the Iowa caucus has been sanctified as some pure form of political participation, we ignore this outrageous system that utterly distorts the actual preferences of Iowa caucus goers. Thus, when the Media reports the Iowa results, they will be reporitng a lie -- the result they will be reporting will NOT accurately reflect the actual preferences of the Iowa caucus goers, just the delegate division.

So what does this mean for caucus goers whose choices are not viable in a precinct and their second choices? That they could become important. On the flip let's discuss it.

The AP combs census and other government reports on Iowa. Here's what they come up with:

• 3 million people, 95% of whom are white
• 86% graduated from high school, 21% from college.
• 88% of the land in Iowa (55 million square miles) is farms. There are 5 1/2 hogs for every person. In 2006, Iowa led the nation in the production of pork, corn, soybeans and eggs. Iowa's total agricultural exports for 2005 topped $4.02 billion, second in the nation.
• Median income is $42,000; 7% of families are below poverty level.
• Median age is 38; 15% are over 65.

As to Iowa voters:

• There are 45 Democratic delegates and 40 Republicans. The state has 7 electoral votes.
• In 2004, George W. Bush got 50 percent of the vote to John Kerry's 49.3 percent
• Registered voters: Republican, 574,571; Democratic, 600,572; Undeclared, 737,054

CNN posted these results from the 2004 primaries.

Like Markos, I thought Steve Gilliard was one of the finest writers the blogs ever produced. Here is Matt Bai offering a NYTimes Magazine tribute to him:

Steve Gilliard was born into this Harlem and took it all in, but he wouldn’t find his voice on the corners. He was quiet, bookish, overweight. He won entrance to an elite high school, where he passed his time reading obscure military histories, then studied history and journalism at New York University. He found his true calling, though, on the Internet. In 1998, when he was 34, Gilliard joined a new site called NetSlaves.com, whose blogger-reporters chronicled the misadventures of the new high-tech work force, and there he discovered his own kind of incendiary oration. It was by the dim light of a computer screen, rather than on the sunlit corners of Harlem, that Gilliard took to expertly excoriating the moneyed establishment.

We still miss him terribly.

The consequences of David Axelrod's offensive remarks linking Hillary Clinton to Benazir Bhutto's assassination continue to reverberate. Today, the Washington Post editorialized:

Mr. Obama . . . began by offering bland condolences to Pakistanis and noting that "I've been saying for some time that we've got a very big problem there."

Then Mr. Obama committed his foul -- a far-fetched attempt to connect the killing of Ms. Bhutto with Ms. Clinton's vote on the war in Iraq. After the candidate made the debatable assertion that the Iraq invasion strengthened al-Qaeda in Pakistan, his spokesman, David Axelrod, said Ms. Clinton "was a strong supporter of the war in Iraq, which we would submit was one of the reasons why we were diverted from Afghanistan, Pakistan and al-Qaeda, who may have been players in the event today."

When questioned later about his spokesman's remarks, Mr. Obama stiffly defended them -- while still failing to offer any substantive response to the ongoing crisis. Is this Mr. Obama's way of rejecting "the same Washington game" he lambasted earlier in the day? If so, his game doesn't look very new, or attractive.

By making a defense of David Axelrod the centerpiece of the Obama campaign's reaction to the Bhutto assassination, the Obama campaign has allowed this story to fester for 3 days. He is sure to face more questions today after this WaPo editorial. Axelrod is killing the Obama campaign. Instead of serving his candidate, Axelrod has chosen to serve his own ego. What a terrible mistake.

Update [2007-12-29 10:54:11 by Big Tent Democrat]: See also Lambert at correntewire.

From the same NYTimes article I discuss here, Obama is quoted:

“Because neither Reverend Jackson nor Reverend Sharpton is running for president of the United States. They are serving an important role as activists and catalysts but they’re not trying to build a coalition to actually govern.”

This quote highlights what has been the central issue of the Obama candidacy for me. I have been writing about it for years now. In my July 2006 post, written BEFORE Obama was a candidate for President, What Obama Needs To Learn, I wrote:

In its profile of Senator Barack Obama, the NYTimes writes:

Much of Mr. Obama’s success as a politician has come from walking a fine line — as an independent Democrat and a progressive in a state dominated by the party organization and the political machine, and as a biracial American whose political ambitions require that he appeal to whites while still satisfying the hopes and expectations of blacks.

Like others of his generation, he is a member of a new class of black politicians. Too young to have experienced segregation, he has thrived in white institutions. His style is more conciliatory than confrontational, more technocrat than preacher. Compared with many older politicians, he tends to speak about race indirectly or implicitly, when he speaks about it at all.

After Hurricane Katrina, he did not attribute the lumbering federal response to the race of most of the storm’s victims. “The incompetence was color-blind,” he said, adding that the real stumbling block was indifference to the problems of the poor. After six black teenagers were charged with attempted murder in the beating of a white schoolmate in the “Jena Six” case in Louisiana, he said the criminal justice system needed fixing to ensure equal justice “regardless of race, wealth or circumstances.”

(Emphasis supplied.) Is that an accurate description of Obama the politician? And if it is, do you like Obama's style of politics?

There will be more than 2,000 credentialed media people in Iowa this coming week. In addition to Big Media, there will be bloggers.

Jane from Firedoglake arrives Sunday, I'll be there on Monday, in time for New Years' Eve. I'll be posting here at TalkLeft and also at Crooks and Liars.

I think it's important to note there are excellent local Iowa blogs that have been following the presidential race all along and which will be great reads for those interested in more in-depth or nuanced reporting than Big Media may decide to provide.

Among those I've found helpful on caucus news and issues and I recommend checking in with:

• Iowa Independent, which I found through Ari Melber's post on HuffPo.
• Bleeding Heartland
• Political Forecast (he's caucusing for Edwards)
• John Deeth Blog
• The forums at Iowa Underground.

Among the Big Media blogs, I like:

• Back Roads to the White House by M.E. Sprenglemeyer who has been in Iowa for the Rocky Mountain News for the past 9 months.
• David Yepsen of the Des Moines Register.

As I find more, I'll update this post.

With primary season about to move into full swing, Ann Arbor Blue at Daily Kos makes a really good point:

Because none of the Democratic candidates suck. No. really. Despite what you've heard from various people around this place lately, none of the "Democrats" is really a Republican, none of them are Bush-lite, and none of them killed your mother and then hid her body....seriously, there really isn't an obviously wrong choice in this cycle.

....Vote for who you want. The only wrong answer is to get so miffed that your candidate lost that you don't throw your weight behind whoever emerges the victor. And this is a message to some of the more zealous supporters of various candidates as well; if you truly believe that Barack Obama, or Hillary Clinton, or John Edwards, or any other candidate is a Republican in disguise, then you need to take a major step back.

....I'll be frank, if you are incapable of recognizing that every candidate on the Democratic side shares the same core principles, and that every candidate on the Republican side opposes them (or at least pretends to), then you're a part of the problem. If you can't separate "I like candidate X" from "I must hate candidate Y", then you're a part of the problem. If you truly believe that someone is a bad Democrat for supporting a different candidate in the primaries, then you're a part of the problem.

That's exactly right. While TalkLeft has not endorsed a candidate, I've made no secret of my preference for Hillary or John Edwards. But I've also said if Barack Obama is the nominee, he will have my support. Because any Democrat is light-years beyond and preferable to a Republican.

Gen. Wesley Clark today:

"This is a time for leadership, not politics. Senator Obama's campaign seems to believe that Senator Clinton's actions led to the tragic events in Pakistan. This is an incredible and insulting charge. It politicizes a tragic event of enormous strategic consequence to the United States and the world, and it has no place in this campaign."

Here's another tidbit of information. On December 12, 2007, Katie Couric asked the candidates which country frightened them the most. Barack Obama answered "Iran." Hillary answered "Pakistan." From the transcript (available on Lexis.com):

COURIC: What country frightens you the most, and what would you do about it as president?

Senator BARACK OBAMA (Democratic Presidential Candidate): I think Iran poses a significant threat to stability in the Middle East. So I think we have to talk to Iran directly. And when we talk to Iran directly, even if there are profound disagreements there, that will send a signal to the world that we are not simply seeking to impose our will without paying attention to what other countries think. And that kind of dialogue has not taken place. This president has refused to do it. I think it's a profound mistake. JFK once said we should never negotiate out of fear, but we should never fear to negotiate.

More...

The AP reports that Barack Obama is back in the stance of the boxer, jabbing while on the defense.

The Illinois senator's stump speech for the final six days of the Democratic race is a package of inspirational rhetoric, policy promises and his signature message of hope. But the undercurrent of the addresses — delivered to large crowds four and five times a day — is a dogged response to Hillary Rodham Clinton, John Edwards and others who say he's too raw and ambitious for the presidency.

Obama can't win the foreign policy experience battle. He said about Hillary today:

In Coralville, Iowa, Obama sniffed at suggestions that Clinton's travels as first lady gave her more foreign policy credentials. Real-world experience matters, he said, "not just what world leaders I went and talked to at the ambassador's house; who I had tea with."

Dismissing Hillary as one who only had tea with Bhutto is silly. As Andrea Mitchell said on Hardball yesterday (transcript on Lexis.com),

More...

Australian David Hicks, imprisoned since 2001 when he was captured in Afghanistan and sent to Guantanamo, has been released from an Australian jail. He's free.

One catch: His transfer agreement with the Government says he cannot speak to the media for one year.

Hicks refused to speak to the media directly for fear of being sent back to Guantanamo Bay. Under his plea deal, Hicks agreed to remain silent about his time in custody and treatment and also forfeited any right to appeal his conviction. He agreed not to speak with the news media for a year from his sentencing date.

"It is my intention to honor this agreement as I don't want to do anything that might result in my return there," Hicks said in the statement.

While Hicks is now free, he's still got strict conditions attached to his liberty:

The magistrate ordered Hicks to report to police three times a week and obey a curfew by staying indoors at premises to be agreed on by police. Other restrictions include that he not leave Australia or contact a list of terror suspects. The restrictions will last for one year.

At this point, I think Barack Obama should just be quiet about Pakistan. After his FP advisor Susan Rice earlier today said:

“Senator Clinton’s view has been closer to Bush’s, which is to see Musharraf as the linchpin but democracy as something that is desirable, but not necessarily essential to our security interests,” said Rice, “Whereas Obama feels that democracy and human rights in the context of Pakistan are essential to our security.”

Now in a complete aboutface, Obama disagrees with Hillary Clinton's suggestion of an international commission to investigate the Bhutto assassination, saying:

Clinton also called for an independent, international investigation into Bhutto's death, "perhaps along the lines of what the United Nations have been doing with respect to the assassination of Prime Minister Hariri in Lebanon." Obama said he doesn't share that view. "It is important to us to not give the idea that Pakistan is unable to handle its own affairs," he said.

Maybe Susan Rice and Obama need to try and get on the same page when they are making utterly contradictory statements about their faith in Musharraf ON THE SAME DAY!