THIS JUST IN: Obama leads Hillary in Iowa, per Des Moines Register poll

Joe just texted me from a dinner. The Des Moines Register poll is the gold standard of polls for predicting what will happen in Iowa. All day the pundits were saying how important this poll is. The results are in. Obama increases his lead over Hillary, 32-25. Edwards is at 24.

Huckabee 32, Romney 26, McCain 13.

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.... Six percent were undecided or uncommitted.

Read the rest of this post...

Markos is not happy with Ron Paul

I'm kind of looking forward to Ron Paul being the "what's that idiot's name, the enviro Green Party guy who lost us the election twice, oh yeah, Ralph Traitor Nader" of the Republican party. More from Markos. Read the rest of this post...

Big Pharma investigated in Iraq Oil-for-food scandal

Shocking. Who could even imagine the pharmaceutical industry being connected to such activities? At least we can be sure they will work with our new president in a fair manner when we overhaul the health care system. Read the rest of this post...

The Iowa Caucuses are upon us...

And Joe and I have just recorded a New Years Eve podcast looking at where the presidential nominations stand on the eve (almost eve) of the Iowa Caucuses (coming this Thursday). You can listen to our latest podcast simply by clicking this link (it's an mp3). This episode is around 30 minutes.

As always, you can subscribe to the podcast via iTunes here, or you can subscribe to the podcast's RSS feed here. And you can listen to any of our old shows via either of the two links in the preceding sentence. Read the rest of this post...

Obama shoots the messenger

If Obama thinks that it's only Edwards who thinks he's too nice/too soft to tackle the problems in DC, he's really living in a fantasy world. In any conversations I've had about Obama, right after praising his positive attitude, the first thing people mention about him is that he may be too nice. Whether he likes it or not and regardless of what Edwards is saying, this is what people are saying.

"The argument goes that the only way to bring about change is to be angry," said Obama at an event in a church hall here tonight. He quickly added: "I don't need lectures about how to bring about change because I have been doing it all my life."

How does "change" fit with cozying up to anti-gay bigots? I appreciate the fact that Obama has been against the Iraq war from the start. This is commendable and it is one issue that I like a lot about him.

More on the 2008 issues, after the jump.

When I look at the problems that we will face in the coming years, I have my doubts about just how strong he will be with changing our health care system or repairing a badly damaged economy. There is a lot of money at stake with both issues and anyone who thinks these will be resolved with debate team exchanges is nuts. We are looking at some of the wealthiest and most powerful special interests in America. They are the reason why we have these problems today. Who out there thinks they will accept change easily?

Take a look at the campaign contributions and think about how easily these groups will change. Numbers listed are from 1990 until 2008, which is still ongoing.

- Pharmaceutical: $148,514,782
- Insurance: $281,058,830
- Securities and Investments - $529,351,964
- Commercial banks: $191,424,027
- Health Professionals: $384,917,481
- Telephone Utilities: $109,581,401

This is what we know about. One could argue that some of these contributions are fairly even between Democrats and Republicans. True. That is also part of the problem. Both parties rely so much on these funds so there is little incentive to go against the tide as will be required for change. It would be nice to think this would be a tough but fair negotiation with the special interest groups but this strikes me as incredibly naive. My heart says "yes" but my brain says "no way."

I like the positive attitude that Obama delivers and think we could really benefit from a return to the positives instead of the cynicism of recent years. (Cynicism for good reason, mind you.) Obama's venture into supporting a bigot in South Carolina didn't help. His wobbly attempts to respond to criticism and having it both ways hardly inspired confidence. For voters seeking a profile in courage, they may have been disappointed.

After the Bush years, a change in tone is refreshing and might help pull in new voters who would otherwise sit on the sidelines. Ultimately though, with the problems that the next president needs to face, I too wonder if Obama has the force to tackle the special interests. He can shoot the messenger all he likes, but that message is already out there and it did not just come out of thin air. Does he have what it takes for the burning issues of the day? Read the rest of this post...

World New Year countdown clock

It takes a moment to load but you can follow the countdown around the world. Read the rest of this post...

Edwards has become relevant

Very interesting development. While for months Hillary was the only Dem of any relevance, over the past month Hillary's camp started attacking Obama, big-time - a sign that Obama had suddenly become relevant. Well, now the transitive property of relevance (okay, I made that up) is making Edwards relevant - namely, Obama is now attacking Edwards when before he was mostly focusing on Hillary. That means that Obama sees Edwards as a threat as well, and that means Edwards is now officially relevant. It's actually turning out to be an interesting race. Read the rest of this post...

The Bhutto media crush

I was talking with a friend this weekend about the Bhutto situation. He knows a little about foreign policy, though it's neither his vocation nor his avocation, and he asked, roughly, This isn't going to have any effect on the primaries, right? Probably not. And it ruins our Pakistan policy, but that policy was terrible to begin with? Right. Pakistan isn't going to fall apart? No. It's not going to affect the fact that Pakistan and Afghanistan are disasters when it comes to counter-terror? Might make it a little worse, but essentially that's accurate. So why, he asked, why the wall-to-wall coverage and focus? The answer after the jump . . .

It's primarily because Bhutto hits the trifecta for media attention paid to a foreigner: Westernized (attended Harvard, no less), attractive (was once named one of People's 50 most beautiful), and female (self-evident). The media has a habit of focusing on Westernized, charming foreign leaders -- and the US has a habit of backing them despite evidence that maybe we shouldn't -- and especially so when the subject is telegenic. Now, I'm not one to complain about media focus on foreign affairs, not *at all*; still, it's worth noting the particular reasons and inclinations behind this kind of media crush. It's interesting that now there's some real coverage of the events in Pakistan, beyond just Bhutto herself, and that's great -- though the actual situation apparently continues to deteriorate.

If US foreign policy for a particular country or topic depends on an *individual* rather than a system or structure or process, odds are it's a crummy policy. The very idea that our foreign policy for Pakistan could be utterly destroyed by the death of a single person, however tragically and unexpectedly, shows you how bad a policy it was in the first place.
Read the rest of this post...

Fred Thompson is "not particularly interested in running for president'

Big gaffe. He was much pretty toast anyway, but still. It really is amazing to see how volatile the Republican side of the nomination still is. Not that the Democratic side isn't getting interesting, with Obama catching up (caught up?) to Hillary, and Edwards finally showing everyone that he still does have a chance. Also, it just goes to show you how these candidates have to be "on" for 24 hours a day, non-stop. That's hard. Any interview with a good reporter is challenging - good reporters have a way of poking you with questions that are hard NOT to answer, even when you know you shouldn't. And with the grueling schedule these candidates have, it's no surprise that they're sometimes just tired and caught off their guard. Every minute of every day is under a microscope. Really quite fascinating. And maybe a little disturbing. Read the rest of this post...

Third party ridiculousness

There's been another bump in the talk of a third party run for president, mostly focused on New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg. It's pretty irritating, and it's largely led by media and political elites who talk a big game about democracy but seem to be horrified the actual process of it. Basically the people who promote "unity" or "coalition" third party presidential runs either don't understand the US electoral/political system, or they don't think it caters to their very particular desires, or both. Really, few things make me crazier than this stuff, for two reasons:

First, there are almost *never* actual policy positions proposed on these issues. Anybody know what, say, Bloomberg thinks about immigration? Choice? Guns? And let's not even get into how just a few years ago, every single talking head on my teevee told me no one could ever again be elected president without extensive foreign policy experience, but what might his views be there? It's insipid. Further, the third party possibilities proposed by the elites (as opposed to those who actually get votes, like Perot), tend to be Republicans who are . . . acting like Democrats. Bloomberg and Schwarzenegger are two prime examples: anywhere but NY and CA, these guys are Dems, and it's not like they're implementing a conservative agenda. But ultimately that means they wouldn't have any kind of national constituency. More after the jump...

The second reason it makes me crazy is a little more personal. You see, the people who support this kind of foolishness tend to be overwhelmingly like me, at least demographically speaking. In other words, the privileged: white, upper middle class, male, coastal. It's embarrassing! This is a group that largely wants everything to stay just as it is, except for maybe helping people in need a little better. To them, Edwards is a Commie and Hillary is too "polarizing," but all of the Republicans are insane. But fundamentally, they all agree with Democratic *positions*, they just don't like to be associated with the actual constituencies of the party (the great unwashed! /eye roll/). Despite being billed as some radical solution to all the "gridlock," what these people most want is for virtually nothing to change. Anyway, the whole thing is about filling air time on the 24-hour news channels, but seriously, if in 40 years I start pontificating about how we need to bypass the electorate by installing a billionaire "centrist" technocrat, somebody please kill me (or at least send me this post). Read the rest of this post...

"Looking at America" -- The America of George Bush

Great -- and disturbing -- editorial in today's New York Times:

The country and much of the world was rightly and profoundly frightened by the single-minded hatred and ingenuity displayed by this new enemy. But there is no excuse for how President Bush and his advisers panicked — how they forgot that it is their responsibility to protect American lives and American ideals, that there really is no safety for Americans or their country when those ideals are sacrificed.

Out of panic and ideology, President Bush squandered America’s position of moral and political leadership, swept aside international institutions and treaties, sullied America’s global image, and trampled on the constitutional pillars that have supported our democracy through the most terrifying and challenging times. These policies have fed the world’s anger and alienation and have not made any of us safer.

Read the rest of this post...

Monday Morning Open Thread

Well, it's the last day of the year. Start fresh tomorrow.

Seems like new polls are being released almost hourly from Iowa. Have to admit, I'm a little skeptical. The refusal rate for pollsters is pretty high. Given the deluge of calls to potential caucus goers from campaigns and pollsters, are people in that state still even answering their phones? Don't get me wrong, I love seeing the new polls. But, I'm having a hard time believing that the small poll of people in Iowa who will actually attend the caucuses on Thursday are being accurately sampled at this point. Although, if the Des Moines Register comes out with a new one, pay attention.

What do we need to know? Read the rest of this post...

Pakistan political commentator speaks out against "modern feudalism"

The British press has been increasingly critical of the position-for-life politics of the Bhutto family. In France, Eva Joly (famous and brilliant anti-corruption judge) referred to Asif Zardari (Bhutto's husband) as "Mr. 40%" referring to his cut on deals passing through the office of his wife during her term in office. There is no shortage of talk about democracy within the family. However, there has been little sign of actual democracy including the recent transition from student to leader of the largest political party in Pakistan, without a democratic vote.

Pakistan political commentator Tariq Ali is much more critical, calling it a "medieval charade." More from Tariq Ali including Bhutto-Kennedy comparisons, after the jump.

A triumvirate consisting of her husband, Asif Zardari (one of the most venal and discredited politicians in the country and still facing corruption charges in three European courts) and two ciphers will run the party till Benazir's 19-year-old son, Bilawal, comes of age. He will then become chairperson-for-life and, no doubt, pass it on to his children. The fact that this is now official does not make it any less grotesque. The Pakistan People's Party is being treated as a family heirloom, a property to be disposed of at the will of its leader.

Nothing more, nothing less. Poor Pakistan. Poor People's Party supporters. Both deserve better than this disgusting, medieval charade.

Benazir's last decision was in the same autocratic mode as its predecessors, an approach that would cost her – tragically – her own life. Had she heeded the advice of some party leaders and not agreed to the Washington-brokered deal with Pervez Musharraf or, even later, decided to boycott his parliamentary election she might still have been alive. Her last gift to the country does not augur well for its future.

How can Western-backed politicians be taken seriously if they treat their party as a fiefdom and their supporters as serfs, while their courtiers abroad mouth sycophantic niceties concerning the young prince and his future.

That most of the PPP inner circle consists of spineless timeservers leading frustrated and melancholy lives is no excuse. All this could be transformed if inner-party democracy was implemented. There is a tiny layer of incorruptible and principled politicians inside the party, but they have been sidelined. Dynastic politics is a sign of weakness, not strength. Benazir was fond of comparing her family to the Kennedys, but chose to ignore that the Democratic Party, despite an addiction to big money, was not the instrument of any one family.

Read the rest of this post...

It's déjà vu all over again and again and again and again

Did we ever have political leaders that cared or am I just having flashbacks to a time that never existed? Whether we are talking about 79 million records or 162 million, that's a lot of lost records in 2007. I know this isn't easy but it's quite obvious that there are no plans in place to protect data or to protect consumers.

The loss or theft of personal data such as credit card and Social Security numbers soared to unprecedented levels in 2007, and the trend isn't expected to turn around anytime soon as hackers stay a step ahead of security and laptops disappear with sensitive information.

And while companies, government agencies, schools and other institutions are spending more to protect ever-increasing volumes of data with more sophisticated firewalls and encryption, the investment often is too little too late.

Read the rest of this post...