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.

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.

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.

Broder reports on his Establishment Nader-like movement:

New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, a potential independent candidate for president, has scheduled a meeting next week with a dozen leading Democrats and Republicans, who will join him in challenging the major-party contenders to spell out their plans for forming a "government of national unity" to end the gridlock in Washington. Those who will be at the Jan. 7 session at the University of Oklahoma say that if the likely nominees of the two parties do not pledge to "go beyond tokenism" in building an administration that seeks national consensus, they will be prepared to back Bloomberg or someone else in a third-party campaign for president.

So if thery do not get a High Broderite candidate to back (McCain and/or Obama, based on a number of reports), they will spend Bloomberg's billions on a quixotic campaign with no chance of success.

What is stunning about this list is that it includes Gary Hart and Bob Graham. Excuse me? What the heck is Gary Hart doing? What is Bob Graham doing? You expect this kind of nonsense from the Borens and Nunns in this group. They were always basically moderate Republicans anyway. And this revolt is a revolt of moderate Republicans anyway.

But Bob Graham ran for President as a Democrat just 3 years ago. And Gary Hart pontificates from a High Progressive perch. Now he joins hands with the likes of Broder and Bloomberg? What a phony he is.

But I must go back to Obama on this, because these High Broderists will NOT mount a challenge to his candidacy, if reports are true. Now what does this tell us about how he will change the system? Obama's Kumbaya schtick now needs to deal with this. I think a response from him is in order. Will he support a Bloomberg candidacy if he does not capture the nomination?

Greg Sargent:

ABC News reports that an ad the Obama campaign released yesterday on lobbying reform excised a quote in which "Obama promised to ban lobbyists from working in his White House -- a pledge the Illinois Democrat seemed to have backed off from earlier this month." The Obama camp responded that the cut had been made for time. Meanwhile, The Washington Post reports that a new Obama health care ad "misrepresents some newspaper assessments of the Illinois Democrat's proposal."

Now if the Media makes a big deal of this Obama is a bad tipper story, then I will know the worm has totally turned. I blame it on Axelrod.

In its earlier 12/20-23 poll, ARG had Clinton ahead by an outlandish 14 points. Either that poll was a clear outlier or Clinton has lost support while Obama and Edwards gained support. The latest results of ARG's 12/26-28 poll:

Biden 5%
Clinton 31%
Dodd 3%
Edwards 24%
Kucinich 1%
Obama 24%
Richardson 5%
Undecided 7%

According to ARG, Clinton is winning women by 38 to 21 percent while losing men by 28 to 25%.

Reading the trend in the poll, the Big Mo is clearly with Edwards.

The Des Moines Register is the biggest paper in Iowa. Here are some of the campaign stories they have filed so far today.

Obama Keeps Pressure On Clinton, Edwards:

Burlington, Ia.- Democrat Barack Obama today kept the heat on his two chief rivals the Iowa Caucuses, taking shots at both Hillary Clinton and John Edwards while describing himself as the best able to change the nation's course. . . . Obama spent more than 10 minutes of a 45-minute speech referring to what he argued were differences between his, Clinton's and Edwards' credibility to challenge the status quo in economic and foreign policy.

Edwards Hunts Second Choice Votes:

Iowa Democrats who support back-of-the-pack candidates should expect to be approached Thursday night by John Edwards fans carrying 80-page booklets spelling out his stances on issues. At every campaign stop, the Edwards campaign has been passing out scores of copies of the red-white-and-blue booklet. Before the candidate takes the microphone, the person introducing him asks supporters to study the pamphlet and carry it with them to their caucuses, where they can use it to persuade supporters of less-popular Democrats to switch to his side.

And from David Yepsen's blog, Hillary Weather:

The forecast for caucus day on Thursday in Iowa is clear with a high of 34 degrees. The day before is also expected to be sunny. That’s Hillary Clinton Weather. The roads and sidewalks will be clean and the ice melted enough to allow older women to get out and caucus for the New York senator. Clinton’s been placing a big emphasis on getting older women to caucus for her. Her events are well attended by them and there seems to be some excitement among some of them about how they can help elect the first woman to the presidency. Women will make up over 55 percent of the caucus attendees on Thursday.

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.