Koo loo koo koo koo koo koo koooo! Good day, and welcome to the Great White South!

The forecast this morning was for rain. Maybe a little sleet, possibly freezing rain towards dawn tomorrow. Snow was supposed to be limited to the extreme north Georgia mountain counties. Any flurries that did fall in Atlanta was not expected to stick.

Yeah, so much for all that. The snow started shortly after four in the afternoon, and hasn't let up yet. Here's what it looked like five minutes ago (5:15 PM):

Time to break out the schnapps...

It snowed in Baghdad today while the Islamic faithful were being called to morning prayer.

A recession? Maybe, maybe not. Maybe soon, maybe already.

Interesting, however, that a Presidential election most everybody thought would be decided by Iraq (which a President can actually do something about), will more likely be about economic issues (which a President can do little more than wring his hands over).

It must suck to have people call you Servin' Norman.

Now that the caucuses are over, maybe somebody can tell Iowans the truth about ethanol:

Using a more realistic measure of cost per miles driven, [Professor Emeritus Don Elliott] shows that a vehicle running on E85 needs 40 percent more fuel to go the same distance as one burning gasoline, and E85 would cost 9.6 percent more per mile driven. On the pollution issue, he figures in the emissions from the fossil fuels used to produce the ethanol as well as the greenhouse gasses E85 produces. When looking at the total pollution produced by each fuel, he computes E85 produces 15.5 percent more greenhouse gasses per mile.

Is there not one Democrat or Republican brave enough to tell us that the Emperor of Corn has no clothes?

Need a little extra juice for your laptop? Find a sink.

Y'know, I'm having a hard time getting worked up over last night's results, and the reason for that is, I have an extremely hard time taking the Iowa Caucuses seriously.

It's amazing to me that almost all of the media refuses to point out a couple of salient facts at this point in every election cycle, namely that Iowa is a pretty weird state, and its freaky caucus system only enhances the weirdness. It's a system that rewards extremes, and one that can be manipulated by small numbers of organized activists.

What happened on the Republican side last night is not terribly different from what happened in 1988, when Pat Robertson finished a strong second behind nearly-neighboring-stater Bob Dole (Bush 39 41 finished third). Like Robertson, Huckabee turned out enough of the local Baptists to swamp the tiny caucus turnout, and looked for a brief moment like a serious candidate--at least to people who were willing to ignore political reality.

This time around, Huckabee has the advantage of not being an outright weirdo like Robertson, and I'm sure that helped him... but c'mon. It's Iowa. Ask President Gephart sometime about how much an Iowa win is actually worth.

Before everybody loses their minds and declares either theocracy or the death of the GOP, let's see what happens in a few actual elections, m'kay?

Dear Iowa Republicans,

I’ll put this in language even your tiny little Iowa brains can understand: What the f*** is wrong with you people?

The news coming out of Des Moines (literally, French for “tell me about the rabbits, George”) tonight is distressing in the extreme. 32 years ago, your Democratic brethren took one look at Jimmy Carter -- the worst 20th Century President bar Nixon, and the worst ex-President ever -- and declared, “That’s our man!”

Three decades later, and along comes Mike Huckabee. Same moral pretentiousness, same gullibility on foreign affairs, only-slightly-less toothy idiot’s grin. Then you so-called Republicans took a look at Carter’s clone and said, “That’s our man, too!”

And by a pretty wide margin.

I’ll give you some credit where it's due: you guys had sense enough to give Fred Thompson a breather, and Ron Paul a pretty solid kick in the (ahem) nuts. But Mike Huckabee? Really? We’ve seen this game before, and its name is... every other single stupid, un-winnable candidate you’ve ever picked -- which is most of them.

So I repeat the question: What is wrong with you people?

All my love, you corn-sucking idiots,

VodkaPundit

PS You're making Iowa Democrats look like Albert freakin' Einstein. How's that feel?

The good news is, I pretty much called the Democratic Caucus dead-on. Drudge has the numbers like so:

Obama 37.53; Edwards 29.88; Clinton 29.41

My numbers were Obama 37; Edwards 32; Clinton 31. I expect all three of the top Dem contenders will get boosts, once the non-threshold votes are split amongst them. Obama could very well top 40% -- another smart pick by yours truly.

On the Republican side I proved to be not-so-smartish. I could have been more wrong, but only if I'd picked Bob Dole, or any of the Baldwin brothers. In a few minutes, I'll have a few words to say to Iowa Republicans. Or as I like to call them, "The world's biggest dummy-heads."

The AP already has declared Mike Huckabee the winner.

If true, this can mean only one thing: Iowa sucks.

UPDATE: I don't know who he's been talking to, but Glenn Reynolds says that Fox has also declared for Huck.

If true, this can mean only one thing: Even Fox News knows that Iowa sucks.

Tom Maguire's Iowa predictions match my own. Is that a good thing, or are we both screwed?

(Hat tip, Insta-Dude.)

US/Arab relations continue to deteriorate due to the illegal war in Iraq started by lying Neocons:

Libyan Foreign Minister Abdel-Rahman Shalgam met Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and other officials Thursday in a meeting underlining an improving bilateral relationship. The U.S. side raised human rights cases and lingering compensation issues stemming from Libya's past involvement in terrorism. VOA's David Gollust reports from the State Department.

Rice has met her Libyan counterpart twice before on the sidelines of U.N. meetings in New York. But the State Department visit by Shalgam was the first by a Libyan foreign minister in 36 years, and reflected a relationship that has improved markedly since Libya renounced weapons of mass destruction and accepted responsibility for acts of terrorism.

The last major US visit to Libya was over 20 years ago, in April, 1986.

Hot off the presses, Drudge has these early numbers from Iowa:

RESULTS:
Clinton 0; Obama 0; Edwards 0
Huckabee 0; Romney 0; McCain 0; Paul 0; Thompson 0; Giuliani 0

Drudge being Drudge, I half-expected him just to fill in his own numbers.

We'll keep you posted with any other breaking news, all night long.

The polls could change drastically after Iowa, but look at what they're saying right now in New Hampshire:

So, while we've been focused on Iowa, over in New Hampshire the last six polls have McCain and Romney tied, tied, McCain by 6, McCain by 6, McCain by 9, McCain by 4. (Some of those are daily tracking polls.)

None of those polls have him any lower than 29 percent. Beyond Romney, nobody else is consistently in double digits.

Romney had better come out of Iowa with momentum, because otherwise he's in trouble.

Nobody else with reliable double digits? If McCain does well in Iowa (defined by a solid third or fourth place finish), then New Hampshire could turn this into a two-man race. It's difficult to see Thompson or Huckabee (or even Paul, for that matter), sticking around after getting 6-9% in NH. Rudy has to stay long enough for Florida, but getting a win there looks tough-to-impossible if voters get it in their heads that the race is down to Two Guys Not Named Rudy.

I can't be the only one totally getting a creepy "I know it was you Fredo" vibe off this picture.

If I were Elizabeth Edwards, I wouldn't be getting on any fishing boats any time soon.

Why is this story so big?

Gov. Bill Richardson's campaign is expected to direct its supporters to caucus for Sen. Barack Obama in the second round of voting at Thursday's caucuses in precincts where he is not viable. Two sources familiar with the plan told Iowa Independent that the New Mexico governor's organizers have been instructed to direct supporters to Obama in the places where they have not reached the 15 percent threshold for viability.

Richardson, whose poll numbers in Iowa have hovered near 10 percent since June, may need a solid fourth-place finish in the caucuses to continue his campaign.

It's big because Richardson is unlikely to break 15% anywhere in Iowa. Not in one single precinct. So if his supporters do as they're told and choose Obama second, then Obama wins tonight with 40% of the vote or better.

That would be bigger than big. That would be huge.

We've already gone over how I expect the Democratic caucuses to shake out tonight. Now let's look at the Republicans.

I just don't see Mike Huckabee winning. Maybe because I just don't want to. I mean, changing your political party registration is a pain in the butt, and I'm not sure the Libertarians would take me back. So I'm going to go against the grain -- and the Intrade bettors -- and pick Mitt Romney as the big winner tonight. The rest of the field will, I think, look something like this:

Romney - 26%
Huckabee - 23%
McCain - 18%
Paul - 12%
Thompson - 10%
All others - 11%

Notice please that I don't think anybody will crack 30%. There's an invisible line there that, if nobody passes it, nobody can claim a solid victory. And the middle three (McCain, Paul, Thompson) are all interchangeable. I feel a lot more certain about the numbers than I do about which names will be attached to them.

Of course, I'm notoriously bad at this kind of thing.

UPDATE: Big roundup of blogger predictions here.

It's never too early to begin the spin. NBC's Chuck Todd has a complete guide to tomorrow's spin, today. It's interesting to note that Todd's guide includes Dead Man Walking Bill Richardson, but barely a word about Ron Paul. Paul must be getting unfairly shut out by those damn neocons who run NBC News.

Intrade bettors like Obama 2-1 over Clinton in Iowa, and Huckabee over Romney by a similar margin.

That said, the numbers are reversed for the Democratic nomination itself -- Hillary leads Barrack 2-1. On the Republican side? Look at this:

(Click to enlargenate.)

In technical terms, this is what highly-paid statistical mathematicians call "a real muddle."

It's a sad time to be a liberty lover in Europe:

Europe started 2008 with a raft of new laws against smoking, air pollution and even junk food adverts, but some grumbled that the New Year's resolutions from the "nanny state" cramped their style.

New rules ban public smoking - even in France! - indoors, smoggy cars from major cities, fatty and salty food ads, etc. The Right is, of course, up in arms:

"I will not let anyone stop me from smoking at my own business," Ali, owner of the Westend Pinte bar in Berlin, told Germany's mass-market Bild newspaper.

"I've been smoking 40 cigarettes a day since I was 12 -- I can't quit now."

Anne Cicek, manager of the Bier Bar in east Berlin, told the daily Berliner Zeitung that she would defy the rules: "We are not little children who need to be told what we cannot do."

The conservative newspaper Die Welt noted that 19th century revolutionaries in Berlin had waved the banner for, among other civil liberties, the right to smoke wherever they pleased.

Rather, they would be up in arms if anybody in Europe were actually allowed arms. But still.

Even the Left is upset:

Writing in the left-wing Liberation newspaper, sociologist Henri Pierre Jeudy suggested the ban marked "the end of an era" for France -- and a danger for personal freedoms.

"Public health costs are being used to justify an ever more coercive control over our private lives," he said, with France's yen for smoky cafes now cast as "an unhealthy mistake".

But Jeudy also warned that "alcohol and tobacco have traditionally been used as weapons against stress."

"Their use, and sometimes abuse, has probably prevented many a collective revolt. Will banning them spark new rebellions?"

Well, when you've pissed off the Center, the Right, and the Left, can revolution be far behind?

We can hope.

Election Projection has, well, projected the election.

As usual, Rasmussen has the best polls and analysis of the race so far. Read the whole thing -- it's required. But here's the key bit:

...among those who are “certain” they will participate in the caucus, it was a bit closer—Clinton 29% Obama 28% and Edwards 22%.

Among those who have participated in the caucus before it was Obama 26% Clinton 25% and Edwards 24%.

Slight adjustments to the expected turnout produces a variety of results, but none that show a clear leader in the race.

Adding to the closeness of the race are the second choice rankings. Edwards is the second choice for 28% while Obama is the number two pick for 22%. Clinton and Bill Richardson are the second choice for 15%. Second choices are important for two reasons. First, because 26% of Likely Caucus Participants say they might change their mind. This includes 8% who say there’s a good chance they could change their mind.

I expect that the strong preference shown for Edwards as the second-choice candidate isn't going to propel him to victory. If you take the bottom five Democratic candidates, the ones least likely to break the 15% threshold, you barely get more than 10% of the total vote. Give 40% of that to Edwards and split the rest between Obama and Clinton, and it's still too close to call.

Best guess for the final tally, after stripping away the non-threshold guys and splitting their votes: Obama 37%, Edwards 32%, Clinton 31%. Yeah, I really do think it will be that close.

Out in Iowa, they play by their own rules. Here’s one of them:

"What you'll do is get up out of your seat and you'll go walk to the corner or space by the wall designated for the candidate of your choice," Chelsea Waliser, an organizer for Sen. Barack Obama, told potential caucus go-ers during a recent Obama rehearsal caucus.

After this first step, party officials will determine if a candidate meets the 15 percent "threshold" requirement.

Supporters of candidates making up less than 15 percent of the vote in a particular precinct will have the option of making their vote count by voting in the second tally for a "viable" candidate -- one that got at least 15 percent of the vote on the first tally.

I think Ron Paul is going to do pretty well in Iowa -- he has a good chance of taking third place from Fred Thompson or John McCain. If he does, then he’ll probably crack the 15% threshold. But if not? Who are Paul supporters going to choose for their second place favorite? I mean, I can see a Romney supporter saying, “OK, I could live with Rudy.” Or a Giuliani fan making peace with Thompson. But once you’re with Paul, you’re with Paul. Even Paul himself has refused to promise to support the Republican nominee. In fact, he hasn't completely ruled out a third-party run in the fall ("I have no intention..." doesn't cut it). So the question remains: Where are Paul's people going to go second?

Knowing that could very well tell us who’s going to win the Republican caucus tonight.

UPDATE/Mea Culpa: "Anonymous" comments:

"By comparison, the rules governing the 1,781 Republican caucuses, which are held on the same night as the Democrats, are pretty simple. The Republican caucuses will use a secret ballot, and, since there is no viability threshold, each vote is simply tallied and the number of votes each candidate gets is reported to party headquarters."

That's more like the Iowa Caucuses I remember from 2000. If you'll forgive the error, it's been a long time since I had to pay any attention to a Republican presidential primary campaign. In 2000, all I cared about was that John McCain lost. And in '96, my only interest was the morbid fascination involved in watching the Republicans put Bob Dole up for slaughter. Really, other than 2000 (and that just barely), you have to go back 20 years to find a Republican caucus or primary that really meant something.

The Drudge headline screams: "REUTERSCSPANZOGBY IOWA POLL: Obama Surges to 4 Point Lead Over Edwards; Clinton Fades to 3rd..."

The story, however, reads just a little bit differently:

DES MOINES, Iowa (Reuters) - Democrat Barack Obama surged to a four-point lead over John Edwards in Iowa, with Hillary Clinton fading to third just hours before the first presidential nominating contest, according to a Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby poll released on Thursday.

Obama and Edwards gained ground overnight in the tracking poll, and Clinton fell four points to third place -- a finish that, if it held, would deal a dramatic setback to the one-time Democratic front-runner.

Obama was at 31 percent among likely Democratic caucus-goers, Edwards at 27 percent and Clinton 24 percent. No other Democrat was in double digits.

Scary stuff for Hillary, right? Maybe. Maybe not. You have to care enough to click to the second page to read this part:

The rolling poll of 905 likely Democratic caucus-goers and 914 likely Republican caucus-goers was taken Sunday through Wednesday and has a margin of error of 3.3 percentage points for each party.

In other words, the margin of error is greater than anybody's lead over anybody else. Nobody knows who's ahead in this game -- and we won't know until Friday morning. Who wants to stay up with me?

This stuff was a lot easier to cover when I was still allowed to drink real coffee.

Billie Holiday and Foolin' Myself.

Got ethanol?

Michael Totten writes from Fallujah:

A sign on the door leading out of India Company’s Combat Operations Center says “Have a Plan to Kill Everyone You Meet.” For a fraction of second I thought it might be some kind of joke. But I was with the Marine Corps in Fallujah, and it wasn’t a joke.

I asked Captain Stewart Glenn if he could explain and perhaps elaborate a bit on what, exactly, that sign is about. “It’s pretty straightforward,” he said rather bluntly. “It means exactly what it says.”

Welcome to counterinsurgency.

Read the rest here.

Bob Novak expects Hillary Clinton to come in third place in Iowa tomorrow.

I have to wonder how long Novak's lead time is for these columns, because I already predicted that result two weeks ago.

The presidential campaign kicks off officially tomorrow in Iowa. So, without unnecessary explanation, VodkaPundit would like to endorse Senator Fred Thompson for the Republican nomination for President. It’s true I once called him “Punxsutawney Fred,” but his anti-candidacy has grown on me, and his backing of Federalist principles is a welcome break from eight years of big-government "compassionate conservatism." Thompson might not be ideal, but he's certainly better than we usually get, or even expect.

In the end, Rudy Giuliani would just be too exhaustingly combative to live with for four or more years. John McCain still needs punishing for the McCain-Feingold Act (a million years in Purgatory might be enough). Mitt Romney is just too slick by half, maybe three-quarters. And Mike Huckabee is so far off the ranch he's over on the next ranch, where they raise alpacas or ostriches or something.

And I sincerely hope that, for all his faults, Ron Paul stays in the campaign long enough to remind Republicans that they're supposed to at least give lip service to smaller government. I think Dr. Paul's foreign policy prescriptions would be the end of this country, and that his acceptance of "North American Union" conspiracy theories proves he lacks even a loose grip on reality. But it's nice to have at least one true-blue believer in human liberty in the race... and if that believer has to be Paul, then so be it.

My second choice for the Democratic nomination is Barrack Obama. We probably don't agree on much, and he speaks and writes in such vague platitudes that I really have no idea what he stands for. However, he seems a decent enough fellow, unlikely to do the Republic too much harm during a stint in the Oval Office. I don't think the same could be said for Hillary Clinton, and not just the word "fellow." In recent weeks, I think she's proven herself too brittle to survive the hardships of the presidency. Although if she wins the nomination, I’d like to change my Republican endorsement to Giuliani, for the same reason other people watch WWE cage matches.

There's nothing much wrong with Chris Dodd or Joe Biden. The country has had far less satisfactory men in the White House, and that's more often than not. So while they're not good enough (or bad enough) to endorse, feel free to file them in the "I Could Live With That" folder. The last time, however, the Democrats were smart enough to nominate someone Mostly Harmless was Bill Clinton back in 1992 -- and Clinton was their last full-two-terms President since FDR died 63 years ago. I don't expect the Democrats to be that smart again, quite so soon.

(Drumroll, please...)

VodkaPundit endorses Representative Dennis Kucinich as the Democratic nominee for the office of President of the United States of America. Until the Democrats shun their wacky wing -- as the Republicans have effectively done to Pats Buchanan and Robertson, and will do soon to a Mike called Huckabee -- the Republic needs a constant reminder of just how dangerously nutty the left wing really is. A UFO-spotting pseudo-Marxist dwarf with shoe polish in his hair ought to do the trick. I was going to endorse John Edwards for being just as crazy, then realized he's probably sane enough to do some real damage.

And now with all due solemnity, I say: It’s time for the people of Iowa to make their choice -- not that I expect them to get it right.