By Catharine Richert, CQ Staff

Of all the places in the nation, Iowa might seem the likeliest place for presidential candidates to talk about their agriculture platforms.

But for the most part, Republicans and Democrats running for office have steered clear of farm policy in the Hawkeye state, even after the $286 billion farm bill (HR 2419) stalled in the Senate, making it possible leadership will revisit the bill in 2008 if the logjam is not removed.

When farming has come up on the campaign trail, candidates have talked about ethanol — a topic that goes over well with Iowa corn growers — but most have avoided going into great detail about farm subsidies, conservation and other agriculture-related programs.

In part, candidates are keeping a lid on farming rhetoric because it’s still possible that the Senate will pass its version of the measure before the end of 2007, making agriculture a moot point next year, say lobbyists and political analysts.

But that’s not the only reason some candidates might be avoiding the subject. Most agriculture issues are regional, so farm policy can be treacherous terrain for someone trying to win votes all over the country. A farming platform that gets high marks in one state could scare off growers in another, according to Chris Peterson, president of the Iowa Farmers Union. “I think they’re scared to death to really go into this,” he said.

Agriculture also opens up debate on other hot-button issues, said Bruce Gronbeck, a political communications teacher at Iowa State. “You can hook the farm bill to labor, you can hook it to immigration, trade,” he said. “You can hook anything to the back of that John Deere.”

If the Senate can’t break their stalemate on the farm bill, candidates might be forced to show their hand on key farm bill issues such as subsidies, land conservation programs and food stamps — but it doesn’t mean they’ll have an easier time talking agriculture.

Republican candidates may find it especially difficult to distance themselves from the administration’s threat to veto the farm bill, not to mention the stance that subsidies should be cut to encourage free trade, campaign observers say. Those ideas won’t go over well in many regions, particularly in Southern states where growers rely heavily on federal support to cover the high cost of cotton and rice production.

For example, free-trader Sen. John McCain , R-Ariz., might be asked to explain his “no” vote against the 2002 farm bill that restored farm subsidies cut in the 1996 measure. Former Sen. Fred Thompson also voted against the 2002 measure, and told Larry Kudlow, host of CNBC’s “Kudlow and Company,” that farm subsidies should be trimmed to ease trade restrictions.

When asked whether he would support farm subsidies in the CNN/YouTube Republican debate Nov. 28, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said he would support programs that help keep farmers on the farm. Any changes to farm supports would have to be offset by similar cuts by our trading partners to keep the playing field fair, he added.

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani agreed. “We could reduce subsidies here if they would do it there. But we shouldn’t do it on our own,” he said.

Of the leading candidates, only former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee dedicates a Web page to farming, supporting subsidies and crop insurance, among other things.

The Democratic candidates seem one step ahead, campaign observers say. For example, Sen. Barack Obama , D-Ill., released a farm plan in October that would limit subsidies to individual farmers and eliminate income taxes for some seniors, among other things. Obama’s plan is based on feedback from a group of Midwestern farmers.

The outline scores points among Iowa farmers; many have been asking Congress to cap payments in the 2007 farm bill over concerns that subsidies lead to high land prices. But Obama might have a hard time selling his plan in the Deep South, where farmers want to preserve the current mix of farm supports.

By all accounts, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton , D-N.Y., has built up her agriculture credibility by developing a strong relationship with the fruit and dairy farmers in her home state. She has weighed in on the measure being debated in the Senate and hosted New York farmers on Capitol Hill earlier this year.

And this week, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson , who is still behind Obama and Clinton in the polls, outlined his plan for farming that includes development of biofuels, limits on subsidies for agri-business and new restrictions on some meatpacking companies.

John Edwards has taken a different tack, focusing more on programs that will help rural communities thrive such as better access to broadband Internet and investment in local biofuel refineries.

High commodity crop prices — particularly for corn — are also putting farm issues on the back burner in Iowa, said University of Iowa agriculture economist Bruce Babcock.

“Prices are so high right now, farmers could care less about the farm bill,” he said.

Gronbeck points out that the electoral vote math in next year’s election could change the playing field for the candidates. If, for example, the electoral vote splits in California, Democrats would have to make up for that support elsewhere and might be forced to court rural votes more aggressively as a result, he says.

By the numbers, it’s unclear how many farming votes there are in the United States, but the conventional wisdom has been that farmers do not make up a strong voting bloc.

Peterson says that perception can be misleading to candidates and their strategists. “If you take into account the ethanol producers, the tractor dealers, all those businesses on Main Street that are connected to rural communities, you have the largest voting block out there,” he said.