Running counter to every other recently released poll, the DMR Poll not only has Obama holding his lead but widening it:

Obama was the choice of 32 percent of likely Democratic caucusgoers, up from 28 percent in the Register's last poll in late November, while Clinton, a New York senator, held steady at 25 percent and Edwards, a former North Carolina senator, was virtually unchanged at 24 percent.

Remember, the DMR Poll nailed the order of the 2004 Iowa Caucus and is easily the most respected Iowa poll. Obama will now be the odds on favorite to win the Iowa Caucuses.

(Speaking for me only) If the DMR poll is accurate, I predict that not only will Obama win Iowa, he will win the nomination.

Via Taylor Marsh (also Newsday), Obama said:

"I don't want to go into the next election starting off with half the country already not wanting to vote for Democrats, we've done that in 2004, 2000." - Barack Obama

Whatever you say Senator Obama. I guess Edwards is the choice:

Hillary Clinton 48 FAV, 50 UNFAV
Barack Obama 43 FAV, 51 UNFAV
John Edwards 49 FAV, 42 UNFAV

Time to end the "electability" arguments Senator Kumbaya.

I am watching C-Span and the candidate speaking is my new favorite. I vote for repealing the 22nd Amendment. Yep. I am watching Bill Clinton. Still the best pol I have ever seen.

The Des Moines Register's final poll comes out tonight at 9:00 CST. It will shake the Earth, maybe.

Consider this an Open Thread.

Now we see why the Obama campaign conference call seems to reek of desperation. A new Iowa poll:

Clinton 30 (24)
Edwards 29 (26)

Obama 22 (27)

Uh oh.

The bar is set. For Obama to "win" Iowa, he has to win. His campaign predicts a win in Iowa:

Democrat Barack Obama's campaign manager David Plouffe told reporters this morning that Obama is positioned to win the Iowa Caucuses. "We think we're going to enter caucus night with enough supporters identified to win even under the most aggressive scenarios," Plouffe said.

Alrighty then Axelrod and Co. No spinning a loss into a win now on January 3. The Clinton and Edwards campaigns played the usual "do well" platitude games.

So here is the Obama campaign, in the face of dropping poll numbers, confidently predicting victory. Bluster? Strategy? I dunno, but it will be hard to back off of this if they do NOT win.

Update [2007-12-31 14:51:31 by Big Tent Democrat]: More on the Obama campaign conference call below the fold. It may have come more to spin forthcoming bad poll numbers and to attack Edwards

Rassmussen Reports provides these favorable/unfavorabe numbers:

Hillary Clinton 48 FAV, 50 UNFAV
Barack Obama 43 FAV, 51 UNFAV
John Edwards 49 FAV, 42 UNFAV

How do you like "unity" now?

How do we know how the candidates are doing? We do not kow for sure really. But the best indicator imo will be the spin coming out of the diffferent camps.

If Obama starts downplaying expectations and talking about New Hampshire, then you will know his campaign has stalled in Iowa. He eeds to win the Hillary Alternative race and beating down expectations of an Edwards victory is the best way to get the waverers. But if he has concluded that winning Iowa is very unlikely he will have to switch tack. That is what I will be watching for the most.

Edwards has to win Iowa. I think that all their spin will be how they will win. No matter what the situation.

From the Clinton camp, what I would look for is if they start talking about winning Iowa. They have done all they can to damp down expectations. If they suddenly try to go back to "we are going to win" mode then that would mean they like their chances and are going for a knockout blow.

3 days to go.

Jane Hamsher of Firedoglake has already touched down in Iowa. I'll be joining her tomorrow morning. We will reprise our roles from the Scooter Libby trial and bring you latest from Des Moines and the Iowa caucuses. We've got our press credentials and reserved space with internet and electrical outlets (not cheap) at the Iowa Events Center (Polk County Convention Complex) where the "big board" will be posting live election night results after the caucuses end.

You can find our coverage at Firedoglake, here at TalkLeft and at Crooks and Liars.

If you'd like to contribute to our Iowa trip fund, you can help Jane here and me through the links below. Your support, as always, is greatly appreciated -- we couldn't do it without you.

The Bloomers (h/t Lambert) are restless and David Boren is making threats:

On Sunday, [Bloomberg] will join Democratic and Republican elder statesmen [read Grumpy Old White Men] at the University of Oklahoma in what the conveners are billing as an effort to pressure the major party candidates to renounce partisan gridlock. Former Senator David L. Boren of Oklahoma, who organized the session with former Senator Sam Nunn, a Democrat of Georgia, suggested in an interview that if the prospective major party nominees failed within two months to formally embrace bipartisanship and address the fundamental challenges facing the nation, “I would be among those who would urge Mr. Bloomberg to very seriously consider running for president as an independent.”

(Emphasis supplied.) To which I reply Bwahahahahahahaha!

Senility seems to be setting in with these Grumpy Old Men. They seem to think someone cares what they think.

Of course Bloomberg might run for President if his ego so demands. He has the billions. And he may be willing to embarrass himself so. It is up to him. Not the Bloomers.

This seems a very stupid thing to do:

Iowans have noticied that Democrat Hillary Clinton is not taking public questions from audiences during her final-push campaign rallies. . . . Clinton took no questions from audiences at any of her stops earlier Sunday, in Vinton, Traer and Cedar Falls.

Now I imagine the questions from the audience will be rather inane and stupid. Unlike many of you, I thought the YouTube debates were ridiculous. But just for the sake of image, taking a few questions seems a no brainer.

Update [2007-12-31 11:49:43 by Big Tent Democrat]: Apparently, neither is Obama:

The New York senator took heat last week for not inviting voters to ask questions, even though Obama hasn't answered questions at his last eight events.

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.