Wasn't Obama a big advocate of Flex fuel cars? I remember reading really recently that he had advocated that the Federal Government only purchase flex fuel or plug in hybrid cars a few years ago. Might have been related to Illinois politics, not national politics, but I don't see Obama being much of an ethanol skeptic.

This post seems somewhat contradictory to me. First, you say that a Secretary Vilsack will do what a President Obama wants him to do. Fair enough -- this was Tom's point. But then you say that the Vilsack pick would signal a President Obama's priorities. Really? Is this necessarily so? Or could it be that he knows that it will take a trusted ally of Big Ag to reach the kind of consensus necessary to bring about real change in our food policy?

The answer is, of course, that we can't know. But your pessimism seems at least as unfounded as Tom's tepid optimism.

Oh, and the bit about Vilsack not being up for re-election is fair enough, but Grassley may very well retire in 2010, which would open up a Senate seat that Vilsack would seem poised to compete for. So maybe Obama doesn't pick him, knowing that Vilsack would be unlikely to carry his food-policy-reform water with 2010 looming. Or maybe Vilsack takes the job as a springboard for a 2010 Senate run, and Obama pushes food policy reform with his second AgSec on point.

The point is, it's too early to say what it means, there are a million moving parts to the politics of this, and I'm done rambling now.

I don't really have an opinion either way on the Vilsack potential pick, but your rejection of the Nixon-to-China analogy is pretty weak.

Nixon could go to China because, unlike a Democrat, he couldn't be painted as weak, and so the political system couldn't muster effective opposition to his resumption of diplomatic relations. But for the corn lobby to paint an administration as anti-subsidy, all they have to do is effectively argue that the administration is opposing corn subsidies. Which is either happening or it isn't.

Basically, it's your phrasing rather than any facts that makes your point here. You could just as easily say: "Vilsack was able to oppose subsidies because, unlike an urban Democrat, he couldn't be painted as anti-farmer. But for hawks to paint Nixon as weak, all they had to do was argue that he was opening a diplomatic channel to a communist country that would inevitably, as diplomacy does, result in concessions on both sides. Which was either happening or wasn't."

Now, we know that that's wrong, because Nixon pulled it off. But the fact that we know it's wrong is only because it already happened. Your framing of the situation doesn't really prove anything either way.

Dude, you seriously need to lay off the caps-lock key. Chockenberry you ain't.

RONBAILEY WTF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?!?!?

There are good things about dilettantism and bad things, and when Ezra writes about agriculture and food production we see the bad things. There's more out there than Michael Pollan and Alice Waters.

As a senator, Obama was in the tank for corn-based ethanol. Vilsack, however, has been an active advocate for wind energy production and his position is that something has to replace corn-based ethanol and has advocated cutting subsidies for the production of corn-based ethanol.

If you don't pay attention to agricultural issues you're likely to assume that "Iowa" == "loves corn a lot." If you pay attention to agricultural issues you know that it's far more complicated than that, and that Obama's much weaker on big ag than Vilsack is.

No! Bad Ezra! No commenting on Cabinet appointments UNTIL THERE ARE ACTUALLY NAMES.

Melinda said it much better than I could, so I'll just add a few things.

Nobody in Iowa honestly believes ethanol is a longterm solution to our energy problems. Iowans aren't stupid and have been trying to establish different industries in the state for years.

I have never heard a voter mention ethanol in relation to politics in Iowa. Not once. Harkin did not win reelection a week ago because of ethanol support. Ethanol is merely a short-term boon to the state's revenue.

It seems you are confusing the lobbying power of the ethanol companies with the political will of agricultural-state citizens. There are very few farmers in Iowa.

I agree with many of your food policy conclusions. I also agree that Vilsack is not the man for the job (I just don't think he's that good at what he does). But I think your ire is misdirected.

The U.S. has one of the most productive agricultural areas in the world. You're basically saying that any person from that area is disqualified from leading ag policy. This is absurd.

There may be many fewer people actually working the land in Iowa than two generations ago, but to say that "there are very few farmers in Iowa" misses the boat by a mile. There are QUITE a few people whose jobs depend on agriculture even if they're not the handful of individuals who still own and farm land.

Iowan pols like Harkin and Grassley don't need to constantly trumpet their support for ethanol because, quite frankly, it's assumed.

The closest house race in Iowa this cycle was between two seed company executives, both of whom made quite sure that the voters knew they were experienced in agri-business.

Certainly, I agree with Melinda and ll3 that Iowans in general aren't push-button stereotypes when it comes to agricultural policy and there is a lot of interest here in developing alternatives, both in energy production and in different forms of agricultural production. But to say that agriculture doesn't play a big role in Iowan politics, or (as in the last thread) to claim deep offense at the suggestion that eaters aren't as well-represented in Iowan politics as producers, is just bizarre.

Can you do us a huge favor and never write or say "at the end of the day" again unless you really mean at the end of the day. It's become a windbag term and you are no windbag.

Time will tell if he is truly progressive and takes steps to remove big agriculture form the government "teat". Maybe he will promote sustainable "organic" methods and place more emphasis on true family farms.

It's not enough for the corn lobby to say "he's against subsidies" - that has no traction with voters. Actually, it has negative traction - people know that subsidies are government handouts and may have some vague bad associations from libertarian rhetoric about distorting the market.

Instead, the corn lobby will need to establish a narrative that Obama is against corn subsidies because he's an inexperienced big-city politician who doesn't understand the needs of the heartland. Making Vilsack the point man for the policy makes this much harder to do, if Vilsack is genuinely on board.