Can't stop to check if you've already seen this, or if someone else has flagged it... Apologies if redundant.

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh010308.shtml

KURTZ (12/29/07): When the votes are counted and we decide who did well—for example, Hillary Clinton. Let's say she doesn't win Iowa. Let's say she gets edged out by 1,000 votes. Is the press going to savage her as a loser?

MILBANK: The press will savage her no matter what, pretty much.

KURTZ: If she wins?

MILBANK: Well, obviously if she wins by any great margin—the press with Hillary Clinton, it's a poisonous relationship. And I visited the various campaigns out there. It's a mutual sort of disregard. And they really have their knives out for her, there's no question about it out there. So—

KURTZ: And to what extent do you think that is affecting the coverage of Senator Clinton?

MILBANK: I think it unquestionably is. And I think Obama gets significantly better coverage than Hillary Clinton does, and given an equal performance he'll come out better for it.

KURTZ: Is this because journalists like Obama better than Hillary or—

MILBANK: It's more that they dislike Hillary Clinton. There is a long history there, her antagonism towards the press. It's returned in spades. And it is a venomous relationship that I see out there.

...most predictive "analysis" from the media stars' cousins, the cogs in the right-wing noise machine...

Well, that outcome is predictable, too, is it not? Who was it quoted in the WaPo (I think) who said the RW blogs were a direct conduit. Along the lines of, You tell 'em what to say and they say it. Efficiency at it's best, but garbage in-garbage out still holds.

And, look who has an advert positioned (at the moment) right under UsedtobeKristin's comment at 9:23. Mike Bloomberg. The left hand side of the web page has standard mayoral stuff, but the right hand side looks like political positioning to me.

I'm reading mixed signals on the effect of independents on Obama's caucus results.

TPM:

Another point that needs saying. There was a lot of talk going into last night that Obama was going to overwhelm the caucuses by bringing in tons of independents. That didn't happen. As a percentage of caucus-goers independents made up almost exactly the same percentage as they did in 2004.

the link to the full post w/embedded links at sig

I think Iowa is an "open" state.

See: http://www.fairvote.org/?page=1801

I was all over the web until late last night, so I don't recall where I picked up this sense, nor in backtracking can I find it today.

But...

There was discussion about the openness of Iowa vs other states which were more restrictive in terms of who could vote in the primary. The point was made about the number of first time caucus goers, and the "youth" vote (whatever that means). One point made was the distribution of the primary votes could be different, in a more restrictive state, if Obama's dependence on independents/R-crossovers was high. IOW, some counsel paying very close attention to those states with closed primaries - where the "real" democrats will select. In addition, there was some speculation as to whether the youth-activists could be counted on to persist in the general.

I also picked up some mixed feelings about the degree to which Iowa accurately reflects who gets the nomination. The degree to which Iowa is predictive seems to be heavily dependent on how you front load the assumptions/constraints into the question. Some say Iowa is highly predictive, others argue against, using essentially the same data.

More worthless chatter.

Obama was born in 1961. Depending on how you slice it, he could be considered a Baby Boomer.

While 1946-1964 reflect the post-WWII demographic boom in births, there is a growing consensus among generational experts that two distinct cultural generations occupy these years. The conceptualization that has gained the most public acceptance is that of a 1942-1953 Baby Boom Generation, followed by a 1954-1965 Generation Jones. Boomers and Jonesers had dramatically different formative experiences which gave rise to dramatically different collective personalities. Other monikers have been sometimes used to describe the younger cohort, like "Trailing Edge Boomers", "Late Boomers", and "Shadow Boomers", but the moniker "Generation Jones" has achieved far more popularity than any of these other terms, and is the only moniker for this cohort that is commonly used in the media.

The birth of my sibs ranged from 1951 to 1965. My own experience argues in favor of multiple cohorts in that time period. For me, defining events were Viet Nam, Kennedy's assassination, etc. For my youngest brother, Gulf War I, Tiananmen Square, and the dismantling of the Berlin wall were more defining.

Great American Hypocrites

http://www.amconmag.com/2008/2008_01_14/article1.html