Barack Obama blames lobbyists. Hunger and environmental groups blame Democratic leaders. Sen. Chuck Grassley calls it "smearing lipstick on a pig." The federal farm bill passed by the Senate was a turkey delivered for the holidays. It won't get much better when it is recooked in conference committee when Congress reconvenes.

This bill in both its Senate and House versions will continue to pump millions of subsidies into the pockets of wealthy landowners already earning record prices for crops. The abuse is epitomized by anecdotes such as a California property owner in the 90210 zip code who receives $1 million in subsidies for crops on land he doesn't set foot on. The statistics back up the stories. Seventy-three percent of payments are pocketed by 10 percent of the recipients, Grassley says.

The bills that will be worked out continue price supports for major commodity crops, corn, soybeans, cotton, wheat and rice. Backers argue that new measures promote biofuels and help fruit and vegetable growers. But the basic structure of the farm bill is unchanged.

You might think that this would be a classic "Eat The Rich" argument between Republicans and Democrats. But in fact, the Democratic leadership in Congress failed to change the structure that pumps millions into the wealthiest of those who call themselves farmers. It further erodes the dwindling culture of the family farmer.

Bipartisan groups of representatives and senators did attempt to limit payments to the top tier in various ways, including Grassley and Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-North Dakota). The Washington Post counted four major efforts to change the bill's subsidy system and to shift dollars into conservation and nutrition programs.

But in the end, back room politics prevailed. Senators from the Midwest and South banded to defeat the amendments. Sen. Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark., who supports subsidies, threatened a filibuster if the Senate did not require a 60-vote minimum on the amendments. To save face on a potential filibuster in their own ranks, Democratic leadership gave in and the Grassley-Dorgan cap was defeated even though it received a majority of support.

And that's why Obama can blame influential lobbyists, and why advocacy groups can blame leadership.

Calling it a farm bill at all is a misnomer. Two thirds of the bill has to do with food stamps and nutrition programs. Crop subsidies, which are the major bone of contention, are a lesser part.

We were encouraged early in the campaign when Hillary Clinton, responding to a forum, indicated she might be willing to consider renaming it something like the rural America bill to more accurately reflect its mission, and thereby change direction. But that idea seems to have died in the campaigning.

Here is where Iowa might have truly led the nation. By pushing harder to revise a federal program that everyone agrees is an abuse, real change might have been effected.

As party members go to caucus next week, some ought to think about how their choices could make a difference.