Does Iowa mean anything? If it does, then Mitt Romney has reason to celebrate. He has risen to the top in Iowa and the latest Strategic Vision poll has Romney at 20, John McCain at 16 and Rudy Giuliani at 18. Considering that Strategic Vision had Romney in the single digits back in March, that's some serious movement. But he's also been spending serious money in Iowa, even as other candidates appear to be discounting the traditional Iowa/New Hampshire strategy.

Rasmussen has also been tracking a steady but consistent increase in Romney's numbers since the single digit days of March, so there is evidence that this is not just an Iowa phenomenon. He's now at 15%, just 3 points shy of McCain and has flipped places with Fred Thompson. Thompson appears to have hit a wall at 15% and will likely stay there until he announces. At which point he will probably gain at least 10 points.

I expect Romney's trend to continue. The immigration deal will be in all the headlines for at least the next two weeks and it will be fundamentally connected to McCain. McCain's a true believer in the deal, but he should also truly believe that it's going to hurt his presidential chances hard.

The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder has an illuminating post on the Republican contest in Iowa. In short, Mitt Romney is way, way ahead of his rivals. A Romney consultant has been seeing very encouraging numbers in his internal polling:

Gov. Romney's ratings are extremely favorable in the state-78% of caucus-goers have a favorable impression of him with only 10% having an unfavorable impression.

In fact, by their tally, the former Massachusetts governor is now up by 17 points in Iowa. Both John McCain and Rudy Giuliani have opted out of competing in the Iowa Ames straw poll, which Romney seems all but certain to win. Mind you, the Ames poll is non-binding in terms of delegates, and is notoriously inaccurate. Back in 1995, for instance, Phil Gramm won the event. Still, this didn't keep Romney from blowing his own horn a bit at a New Hampshire campaign stop:

"You won't believe this," Romney told hundreds of activists gathered for a party fundraising dinner. "Today, both Sen. McCain and Rudy Giuliani have withdrawn from the Ames straw poll. And the head of the Republican Party of Iowa said, 'I guess they saw the handwriting on the wall.'"

But Giuliani is smart to skip Iowa and keep his eye on the larger prizes of California and Florida. After all, given the newly condensed primary schedule, momentum from an Iowa win may prove to be extremely short-lived.

The woman amazes me over and over again. Her husband leaves office and it appears that she had sacrificed a political career in order to help her husband succeed. Too late to start a career in politics. She decides to run for the U.S. Senate seat in New York. Give me a break. How can somebody from Arkansas get elected in New York? Rudy will kick her butt. Time passes, Hillary is Senator from New York. Next time out, she wins in a walk. Amazing!

Her husband is almost impeached for cheating on her. She absolves Bill of his sins. She allows the word to filter out that she will run for President. Suddenly, she is way ahead in the polls. Warning sign: Edwards Leads In Iowa Caucus Polls." Like I told my friends, Hillary will lose in Iowa and her status as front runner will begin to erode like the sands on the beach.

Again, I have underestimated Hillary. Yesterday, she went to Iowa and put on a show. The crowds were big and they wanted Hillary. She told them "its about time for a woman President." How does one argue that one. She accepts blame for President Bush escorting us into a war that has weakened the United States. Yes, she should have been tougher on George, but she trusted him. Yeah, right. She said "The President misused the authority the Congress gave him." Yesterday, Hillary was able to explain how she went from a supporter of the Iraq War to an opponent.

Finally, she let the crowd know that she is stronger than any guy running.

Memo to the current crop of Iraq war cheerleaders, in other words, the Republican candidates for president (save Ron Paul): the people of Iowa whose votes you covet want the U.S. out of Iraq, and soon. This finding comes to us from Strategic Vision, a GOP public relations company that has just conducted a survey of Republican voters in Iowa.

When asked, "Do you favor a withdrawal of all United States military from Iraq within the next six months?" the GOP rank and file responded in the following manner:

Yes 51%
No 39%
Undecided 10%

Iowa Republicans, it would appear, are far ahead of Senator John Warner, who wants to give the nation a Christmas present of delivering a token number of soldiers home for Christmas. One gets the feeling that Republican candidates, and their counterparts in the Congress, are lagging behind the views of their constituents. Sticking by this president through thick and thin may not be such a wise move, considering another question on the survey that was asked only to Republicans:

Do you see President George W. Bush as a conservative Republican in the mode of Ronald Reagan?

Yes 9%
No 78%
Undecided 13%

John Edwards is ahead in Iowa. Hillary Clinton is falling behind. And on the Republican side, Mitt Romney is moving to the top. Should the other candidates be worried? As you probably know by now, I am a captive of history. Therefore, true to my style, I reviewed the early polls for the 2004 Iowa caucus.

In August 2003, John Kerry was in trouble. He had 14 percent of the potential voters on his side. Edwards, in his first bid for the White House, had 5 percent while Howard Dean 23 percent and Dick Gephardt had 21 percent.

By November 2003, Kerry had a slight upward movement to 15 percent. Edwards stayed the same. Dean slipped to 20 percent and Gephardt was feeling confident with a 27 percent showing.

January 2004 showed a new leader. Suddenly, John Kerry was up to 26 percent. Edwards had surged to 23 percent. Dean was languishing at 18 percent and Gephardt had plunged to 18 percent.

The final results? Kerry 37.6 percent, Edwards 31.8 percent, Dean 18 percent and Gephardt 10.6 percent.

In the end, the cream came to the top. The moral to the story is not to bother with the early Iowa caucus polls. As a footnote, for those who do care about these irrelevant Iowa polls, Romney and Edwards are in the lead in Iowa.

Mitt Romney romped in the Iowa Straw Poll, though it doesn't mean much since Rudy Giuliani and John McCain didn't participate:

Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, got 31.6 percent of the more than 14,000 ballots cast, compared with 18.1 percent for second-place finisher Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas; 15.3 percent for Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback; 13.7 percent for Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo; and 9.1 percent for Texas Rep. Ron Paul, who rounded out the top five in the 11-man field.

This means nothing for Romney as he expected to win. For Mike Huckabee, it gives him a much-needed boost but essentially means he'll be around until the Iowa caucuses and then drop out.

The big losers were Sam Brownback, Tom Tancredo, who failed to get any real traction during the immigration bill debacle and Rep. Ron Paul. Paul, in particular, needed a good showing to give clout to his alleged groundswell. That groundswell didn't materialize and if Paul can't win -- or even make the top three -- in a watered-down field, he has no business being in the race other than to act as spoiler -- which may be the plan.

The Iowa Straw Poll was once considered to be of great import but that time is passed. The candidates made a showing of busing people in and treating them all nicely in exchange for a vote that means nothing. I suspect that we'll see Brownback, Tancredo, Tommy Thompson and Duncan Hunter pack it in as they had dismal showings and their campaigns have not lit any sparks anywhere (in Hunters case, that's a shame). Paul will keep going as he has, in his words, "large Internet support," but real voting is not the same as spamming a blog's poll and hitting the Ron Paul button fifty times in three minutes.

This Weekly Standard article by Terry Eastland notes that the Iowa Caucuses are especially well-suited for an low-funded underdog campaign like Brownbacks. But the interesting part of the article is where Brownback would like to position himself in this fight.

The Brownback campaign, in short, sees an opportunity to position the senator as the standard-bearer for social conservatism. Jerry Zandstra, an ordained minister in the Christian Reformed Church and political activist in Michigan and a member of Brownback's exploratory committee, is attacking Romney online for his views on abortion (as well as on other social issues), describing him as a candidate who is "historically pro-choice" but whose position "depends on the next election." Zandstra is also taking on Giuliani ("unquestionably pro-choice") and McCain ("B-plus" on opposing abortion).

In a recent poll of likely Iowa voters, John Edwards received 36% of the likely caucus voters. He outdistanced Hillary Clinton who received only 16%. As the vice presidential candidate in 2004, he was unable to carry his own state. To date, I considered this unforgivable. With this poll, I am beginning to wonder if Kerry lost the state and Edwards was unable to carry him across the line.

This poll shows the race that has yet to begin should not yet be conceded to Hillary Clinton. The volatility in Iraq can change the standings in the polls very quickly. A negative rumor about Bill could change things even quicker.

Elections are volatile things. Sometimes things happen: a candidate steps in it (so to speak) and some incident gets huge publicity and a 10 point leads evaporates and the other person wins. That's why campaign staffs tend to play it safe and not expose their candidate to reporters or other potential off the cuff remarks. Minimize the opportunity for damage.

At this stage, campaigns pay close attention to the favorable/unfavorable ratings of the incumbent. Generally speaking, favorables below 50 percent means an incumbent should be challenged and below 40-43%, they are in trouble. So, how are things going out there? From the Washington Post:

In the seven key Senate seats, the average reelect number for the GOP incumbents was 37 percent, with just 13 percent saying they would "definitely" vote to reelect the incumbent. Greenberg referred to those results as "go get your shotgun numbers."

If you're a Republican candidate, it can always get worse this cycle. The preferred candidate of Iowa Republicans is Other/Undecided at 31%. Mitt Romney currently has 26%, Rudy Giuliani next. And in fourth place? Barack Obama. Apparently, he has crossover appeal in conservative Iowa. His message of stopping the partisan war and moving forward is generating support among Republicans.

They have underestimated Mitt Romney from the beginning for a few reasons: He changes his positions like people change their clothes. Americans would never elect a Mormon president of the United States.

But Mitt Romney knows how to win. His positions are irrelevant. He is like a chef in a fine restaurant, he knows what to cook and how to serve it.

The Boston Globe reports today on Des Moines Register polls, conducted on May 20, that show Mitt would easily beat John McCain and Rudy Giuliani if the Iowa caucus were held today. How can that be? The answer: money and organization. Furthermore, the story points out that those in Iowa are still miffed at McCain for skipping the Iowa caucus in 2000 and if that wasn't bad enough, they are not happy about his stand on immigration. As far as Giuliani goes, he isn't sure if he cares about Iowa. He only has nine staff members in Iowa compared to sixteen for Romney and seventeen for McCain.

A victory in Iowa could make this Massachusetts Republican a strong contender for president.

Fred Thompson continues to "test the waters" of a presidential bid. He's taking his time, you see, for a very good reason. It's just that nobody seems to know what that reason is. Consider Thompson's weekend stopover in Iowa. Now, why else would he go to the state fair, if not to show people he is serious about running? And yet, his trip lasted all of a single day. From Friday's Des Moines Register:

If Fred Thompson wants a place in an already full-blown campaign for the Iowa caucuses, he will have to begin hustling today to explain who he is and why he ought to be president, Republican leaders and undecided GOP caucus goers say. But by the looks of the former Tennessee senator's schedule for this first day as a presidential prospect in the leadoff nominating state, he will have hardly begun that task by the time he leaves Iowa this afternoon.

The "lazy" label has been with Mr. Thompson since his days in the Senate. And Friday's brief golf-cart tour of the Iowa State Fair did nothing to quell the notion. Gucci loafers aside, this is no way to impress voters in the heartland. Especially when the other candidates have been working hard for the past several months to impress them. %Gallery-2654%

There's been a great deal of anticipation for Fred Thompson to get into the presidential race for 2008. But while waiting for his decision is causing excitement among conservatives, is it also creating problems?

In assessing the decisions of Rudy Giuliani and John McCain to skip the Iowa straw poll on Aug. 11, Pat Buchanan extends his analysis to Thompson, who will also not be participating in the poll.

"Writing off Iowa makes sense for Thompson," Buchanan writes. "For it is hard to see how he could make up for the lost six months he has already ceded to the other candidates in organizing the state. Most Iowa political activists have already committed to other candidates."

In April, the New Orleans Times-Picayune reported that among the predictions from former (Bill) Clinton strategist James Carville was that "The current Republican field is so notably lackluster – 'Rudy Giuliani has been married more times than Mitt Romney's been hunting' -- that the party will turn to someone not even in the field yet. And 'the only person I can figure is Jeb Bush.'"

Or Thompson. But can anticipation trump organization? We'll see...

A short time ago, I published the list of those who I thought might be running for president in 2008. My subconscious took over and I spelled Tom Vilsack's name as Vlassic. Guess my mind was on food. This week, Governor Vilsack has announced he wants to be President. If he is as popular as the pickle, he might just win.

What an interesting candidate. He has been a mayor. Became the first Democratic Governor of Iowa in thirty years. Maybe, John Kerry would be president today had he selected Vilsack to be his vice president. He didn't and he isn't.

Coming from Iowa, he should have a good chance of winning that state. Or would he? A recent story in the Des Moines Register started by saying that he is not a guaranteed winner in the Iowa caucus. In fact, the article went on to say that in a June poll, Vilsack finished in fourth after Edwards, Kerry and Clinton. Though I believe that Kerry is no longer a contender, a more recent story in that same paper indicates that Barack Obama is a viable candidate in the Iowa caucus. I have a feeling that after the next poll, Vilsack will still be in fourth. The Democrats have had enough candidates in the last two Presidential elections (Gore and Edwards) who couldn't even carry their own state.

Another problem that Vilsack faces is that he has supported the war in Iraq. As I have written before, in another six months, those who blindly supported this war may have to learn a new dance. In summary, I think that Governor Vilsack is running in hopes of being selected as a vice presidential candidate.

Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack was always a very long shot for the Democratic presidential nomination. He didn't even come close to raising the money needed to run a legitimate campaign today, and left the race about $148,000 in debt. Then Hillary Clinton stepped in, as the Los Angeles Times reports (He backs Clinton; her backers help him):

Shortly after endorsing Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign, former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack received nearly $90,000 in donations to his defunct presidential campaign from some of Clinton's major backers, campaign finance reports show.

...In May and June, at least 45 Clinton donors contributed $87,000 to Vilsack's presidential campaign account. Vilsack used part of the money to repay himself $55,000, part of a personal loan he had given to his campaign. He paid other bills as well.

There is absolutely no evidence that anything illegal happened, but it just doesn't seem right. Up until this election cycle and Super Duper Primary Tuesday, Iowa was the big momentum getter for primary candidates. In the past, Iowa made campaigns and broke campaigns -- just ask John Kerry and Howard Dean. Having an endorsement from a very popular former governor was worth its weight in gold. Apparently, Clinton placed a dollar figure on that support as well. I expect that her donors will retire Vilsack's debt fully by the time this is over. Politics: pay off your enemies and buy your friends.

AP is reporting that Tom Vilsack will drop out of the presidential race. Despite his homestate advantage in the first-in-the-nation Iowa caucus, he faced an uphill climb raising money and his name recognition. Especially against such heavyweights as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

Last November, Vilsack was the first Democrat to formally declare his candidacy. Just months later -- and still 11 months before the first votes of the primary season are cast -- he's out. Was it the right call?

And what does this mean for the rest of the field -- Do any of the lesser-knowns have a chance?

2PM Update: Gov. Vilsack announces his decision in Des Moines, Iowa, with his family by his side. He says the decision was driven by financials:

"It is money and only money that is the reason we are leaving today," Vilsack told reporters at a news conference, later adding, "We have a debt we're going to have to work our way through."