John Hood makes an excellent point:

There is also a longer, truly heart-felt affection by center-left journalists for McCain, who mirrors their sentiments on the issue they (wrongly) believe is central to American politics: campaign-finance reform.

…in this matter Iowa is inconvenient for the McCain/Left argument. Huckabee had little money and won. Romney spent lots of money and came in second.

This is one of the biggest reasons that I do not want to see John McCain as president. Of course, it’s also one of my many unhappinesses with George W. Bush, who signed a law that he stated himself he believed to be unconstitutional, thus betraying his oath of office.

As of 7:20 EST Friday, on Intrade, Obama has moved up to $0.48 on the dollar vs. $0.50 on the dollar for Clinton. Clinton is showing as a close third to Edwards in Iowa dropped her from a high of $0.70 last week.

On the Republican side, McCain is trading at about $0.31 on the dollar for Republican nomination now ahead of Giuliani at about $0.27 with Huckabee at $0.17 and Romney at $0.14. Giuliani was trading at $0.45 at the beginning of December.

A political stock market, a class of info markets, is the best known device for aggregating poll data and all other available data, public and private about the chances of the candidates.

Obama-NH last trade at $0.65 out of $1.00 vs. $0.44 for Clinton. For SC, it’s Obama $0.62 with Clinton’s last trade at $0.42. Some arbitrage opportunities here to lock in more than $1 by selling short each candidate. McCain is trading at $0.75 for NH and in SC, The Rest of the Field (There’s no Huckabee security here for some odd reason) is trading at $0.40 vs. McCain’s $0.30.

No better place to hang out tonight for the Iowa Caucus (Cauci?) than Iowahawk’s place.

Everyone (well, not everyone, but the conventional wisdom) is writing off Fred Thompson.

But this prognostication raises a question that (as far as I know) has never been asked. Everyone assumes that if Fred drops out, he throws his support to his old bud McCain. But what if Thompson does much better than expected, and after South Carolina, McCain drops out? Where does his support go? Will he explicitly endorse Thompson? And even if not, will his voters go there anyway?

It’s hard to see them going to Huckabee, Romney or Giuliani. What do they have to offer the conservatives and hawks who were with McCain (assuming that’s why they were with him). Neither Huck or Mitt has been very strong on the war (that’s a vast understatement with respect to Huckabee, who seems to be a Republican version of Jimmy Carter). And Rudy seems too socially liberal to attract McCain voters (many of whom are presumably attracted by his pro-life position).

If Fred comes in third (and two positions above McCain) in Iowa, as predicted above, he will probably have enough momentum to ignore New Hampshire and raise money for South Carolina. Particularly since he will have shown that he didn’t “enter too late” (the other candidates entered too early, as he continually points out) and that he can do well when he focuses on a needed state.

The key point is that with all of these polls, no one has a majority. The real question is: where will people go when their favorite flames out? People should be asking that about every candidate, not just Fred. This is still anyone’s (well, OK, not Ron Paul’s, or the other minor candidates’) race, in that if one can pick off the votes of the others, they can rapidly raise their percentage to a majority. This seems like good news for Fred to me, if he can do well tonight. This is a result of the fact that there’s no Republican incumbent.

And if no one can, then things will be very interesting at the convention. It seems to me that if it ends up brokered, that ends up being good for the most genuine heir to Ronald Reagan as well.

The Lakota are declaring their independence.

“We are no longer citizens of the United States of America and all those who live in the five-state area that encompasses our country are free to join us,” long-time Indian rights activist Russell Means told a handful of reporters and a delegation from the Bolivian embassy, gathered in a church in a run-down neighborhood of Washington for a news conference.

A delegation of Lakota leaders delivered a message to the State Department on Monday, announcing they were unilaterally withdrawing from treaties they signed with the federal government of the United States, some of them more than 150 years old.

They also visited the Bolivian, Chilean, South African and Venezuelan embassies, and will continue on their diplomatic mission and take it overseas in the coming weeks and months, they told the news conference.

Lakota country includes parts of the states of Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana and Wyoming.

The new country would issue its own passports and driving licences, and living there would be tax-free — provided residents renounce their US citizenship, Means said.

They have really gotten a raw deal, having had socialism imposed on them by the Great White Father back east for all these decades.

It will be interesting to see how many countries recognize them (Venezuela and other America haters are a sure bet).

It also will be interesting to see what they actually do, and what Washington’s response will be. Will they implement border controls?

…from 2007. A roundup by John Hawkins. He’s got them from both sides of the aisle, but the vast majority are clear products of Bush derangement.