While we're on the topic of the Iowa Democratic caucus, one of the most important "events" that take place during the proceedings is the designation of a second-choice candidate for those candidates that don't win 15 percent support during the caucus. As a result, second-tier candidates may have a role in deciding who wins the caucus by directing their supporters to back someone else.
Kucinich has already asked his supporters to back Obama. (An interesting choice, given that he backed Edwards over Dean in 2004. Why the nod for more conservative candidates?) And Ralph Nader asked his supporters to go for Edwards.
Christopher Dodd says he won't make any deals during the caucus. Presumably, his supporters will decide for themselves who to back.
The big mover and shaker and Iowa could be Bill Richardson, who enjoys about 10 percent of support in the state. Given that the top three Democratic candidates are polling about even, even a few percentage points one way or the other could significantly alter the outcome of the caucus. According to an "exclusive" in today's Iowa Independent, Richardson is planning to throw his support behind Obama, a surprise, given the buzz that Richardson was angling for the VP spot on a Clinton ticket after his defense of the New York Senator during a recent debate.
(In an unrelated matter, check out the poll numbers from MoveOn.org members. It pretty much mirrors the composition of national Democrats, doesn't it? With two exceptions, of course: about twice as much support for Kucinich as found in national polls, and an undecided amount that hovers near ten percent.
So much for MoveOn.org being a "radical" organization. In reality, it appears to be a mirror of rank-and-file Democratic supporters...who make up a plurality of the entire electorate...)
Today's Missoulian has an interesting opinion piece by Tim Rutten reprinted from the LA Times over the current debate regarding the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" and the recent squawking about the "General Betray Us" and "Phony Soldiers" business. The great lede points our that we all love free speech when it applies to us, but not others. What he says afterward I find very frightening.
The scary part of Rutten's piece is his reminder that deregulation of the airwaves led not only to the ascension of conservative talk-radio but also an immediate buy-out of local radio stations by large corporations. This also affected television and certainly makes the Conservative anthem of the "liberal media" largely suspect. Maybe it's yet another indication of why, after the abuses by the Robber Barons in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, anti-trust legislation was enacted in the first place.
Rutten states that in actuality this fight isn't about free speech, it's about what kind of speech is right, but I think the Dems are the good guys by fighting for reregulation. If I'm the richest man in the world, I shouldn't be able to buy out the media, just because the market is free and open. That goes for both sides. Conservatives argue that the media leans to the left. That might have been true at one time, and maybe, just maybe, that's because the media actually represented the views of the people, not the CEOs.
