NH Dems Tell MSM: "Slow Down, Important Election Underway"

The punditocracy is stunned for the second time in a week. The Democratic nomination battle has everyone scratching their heads, hungover from a weekend-long binge of polls and political rallies in the snow. The frenetic pace (and the 24-7 news cycle's voracious appetite) have left the candidates, the media and the general population (at least those of us who pay attention to politics and not Britney) exhausted and disoriented.

Thank you, New Hampshire, from a long-time member of the ABC (Anybody But Clinton) Camp. In this compressed election cycle, I think the NH Democrats did the rest of us a huge favor yesterday.

Why? Because the voters have shown they are now in control of the campaign's narrative.

The Democratic nomination's 2008 narrative had been viewed throughout the 2007 calendar year as Hillary Rodham Clinton's "coronation march." The endless endorsements and insurmountable leads in national opinion polls combined with a professionally run textbook campaign led the MSM to believe in Sen. Clinton's aura of inevitability.

The only hint that something may have been amiss in the House of the Democratic Establishment was Sen. Barack Obama's quirky ability to raise oodles of money. Everyone anticipated Sen. Clinton would be able to raise unprecedented funds for her presidential campaign. Few predicted anyone - nevermind a freshman Senator from Chicago, Hillary's hometown - would be able to keep pace and build a fundraising list larger than the well-connected Clinton machine.

While Obama's fundraising prowess was impressive, the MSM also found it easy to dismiss as another insurgency a la Howard Dean. Democratic nomination fights often have insurgent campaigns that catch the electorate's imagination early but flame out when the real voting takes place.

When Iowa's caucus voters showed up in record numbers last Thursday night and delivered a resounding repudiation of the Clinton machine, the media and the general population (not to mention TeamHillary) woke up to the realization that this Democratic nomination would be no cakewalk for the former first lady. As John Houseman would say in the old Smith Barney ads, "She's going to have to earn it."

The media - provided a new and exciting storyline for the Democratic race - caught a severe case of "Obamamania" over the weekend. Every poll seemed to indicate an ObamaWave was sweeping across from the plains to swamp the Clinton Granite State firewall. The talking heads told us there was little Clinton could do to reverse the momentum. We saw Hillary tear up (and the media tear her down). We saw Bill Clinton's angry and bitter side (one we often heard rumors about but rarely saw during his presidency).

On election day, media predictions during the afternoon heralded the end of Two Dynasties - the Bushes and Clintons. It was a grandly historic day - at least the media kept telling us. More than 4 out of ten Republican NH primary voters were either dissatisfied or angry with Bush and Obama was going to win going away, if the latest polls were to be believed.

It turns out the polls predicting a 10-12 point Obama victory were dead wrong. Many theories are being bandied about. Was it the tears? Did women rally to Hillary's side when the media (and her opponents) displayed a blatantly sexist double-standard? Was it the fact Hillary decided to change tactics and actually answer audience questions over the weekend? (without which the tears would never have flowed) Or was it the playing out of the "Bradley effect?" Did a latent Yankee racism creep into the privacy of the polling booths? Or was it the triumph of the experience over rhetoric argument?

I argue it was a combination of all of the above. But, I also believe another factor was in play: This race to a nominee was hurtling far too fast for the staid Granite Staters. In their stoic wisdom they understood that the media frenzy and the willingness of the punditocracy to transfer the crown of inevitability from one head to another was occuring far too fast.

Iowa Democrats validated Obama's viability as a national candidate. New Hampshire Democrats, in backing Clinton, were not rejecting Obama's message as much as they were saying: Slow down. We're moving much too fast. We need to make sure the Democratic standard-bearer is our strongest candidate in November. As a result, more Democrats get to weigh in and determine our nominee.

Thank you, New Hampshire and Iowa.

Obama: America's Great Hope?

The more I thought about it yesterday, I began to think Obama winning the presidency might be America's one chance at redemption for the foreign policy disasters of the past seven years. His ascension sends a powerful message to the world about what America truly aspires to be - a beacon of hope in a world of conflict and human rights abuses. An Obama Administration would also be another step in the long and arduous process of cleansing our nation's soul from the centuries-old stain of slavery, Jim Crow and institutionalized racism.

Did you see this at PoliPundit? Poses an interesting theory about the Iowa white Democrats voting for Obama were about publicly showing their "anti-bigotry and tolerance quotient" to their neighbors. Interesting. Will the reticent Yankees of NH revert to the "polling booth racism" inherent in the Bradley effect? Or did Howard Ford Jr's run in TN Sen-06 (where he actually received a larger % of the vote than he had been polling) usher in a new electoral reality?

We'll see on Tuesday night.

Hawkeye Lessons, Election 2008

Iowa Democrats issued a clarion call for change last night by rebuking the Clinton machine and endorsing Barack Obama's post-partisan message of reconciliation and change. While Democratic turnout swamped the Republicans, the GOP voters delivered a verdict demanding change and rejected the failed Bush policies by endorsing the DC outsider's candidacy. While I think the MSM's rush to describe this election cycle as similar to 2008 is premature and hyperbolic, it's clear something is happening.

The rise of populism (on both sides), a generational shift, an unpopular war and a politicized and engaged electorate is a recipe for a tectonic political change. Barack Obama finds himself perfectly positioned for the campaign ahead.

The entrance poll data reveals:

1) The Energized Youth: Obama's campaign took a huge risk by staking his political fortunes on the notoriously disengaged voters under the age of thirty. Despite predictions the youth of 2008 would behave as the youth of the past, Obama built an Iowa (and national) strategy on a generational foundation. Defying the experts, they showed up in droves.

2) The Missing Gender Gap: TeamHillary believed she could achieve victory by attracting the majority of female voters. In a party where women outnumber men, female voters were viewed as Hillary's firewall. Surprisingly, Obama bested Hillary by a 35-30% margin.

3) Indies Heart the Democrats: Non-affiliated voters chose to caucus with the Democrats (20% were indies) and they were solidly in Obama's camp. Clinton attracted only 17% of these voters, finishing far behind Edwards and Obama. This reaffirms the general consensus Sen. Clinton is the polarizing figure in the Democratic race and undermines her argument as the most electable general election candidate.

4) Ronnie, They Shrunk Your Party: The 'theocratization' of the Republican Party continued, full-steam ahead. Fully 60% of the Iowa GOP caucus attendees were self-identified evangelicals. The GOP's decades-long Southern Strategy may be coming to fruition: a retreat to the land of Dixie, unelectable outside the South.

CNN Chatter: Bill as One of the Supremes?

CNN has a story about Inside the Beltway chattering classes discussing the possibility of Bill Clinton on the Supreme Court if Hillary wins the White House in 2008. No one would go on record in response to Pepperdine U conservative legal professor Douglas Kmiec's prediction of a SCOTUS Justice Bill.

While the possibility seems farfetched, just remember there was a time when the idea of Hillary as a Senator from New York seemed like a crazy idea.

The Final Iowa Ads - Edwards' Unique Approach

All three leading Democratic candidates bought substantial airtime on Iowa television last night, the Iowa Caucus Eve. While both Obama and Clinton appear in a one-on-one sitdown with the Iowa electorate to deliver their closing arguments, John Edwards doesn't even appear in his closing ad. Instead, he has Iowan Doug Bishop explain Edwards' promise to Bishop's young son, "I'm going to keep fighting for your daddy's job" as the reason he supports Edwards.

In my opinion, the choice to have an average American deliver a testimonial on his behalf, was the more powerful of the three Democratic ads.





Obama lightheartedly lets Iowans know "you'll be glad to know this will be one of the last times you'll here me say, "I'm Barack Obama and I approved this message""... and then goes on to explain why he is running for president. "I'm running to finally solve the problems we talk about year after year after year..."





Hillary's ad, called Crossroads delivers a litany of issues facing the nation's next president. But the MSM seems to be more fascinated by the "extreme makeover" and good lighting of the softer, gentler Hillary than the substance of the message.

NYT: Iowa May Provide Dems Few Answers

Adam Nagourney poses the question: What if Iowa Settles Nothing for Democrats? by describing the Jan 3rd caucuses with, "Rarely has a political event been so intensely anticipated as a decisive moment, at least on the Democratic side."

Really? I was always under the impression Iowa was the first step in a long (but very shortened this cycle) series of elections designed to determine the Democratic nominee. Despite Michelle Obama's misguided statement of Iowa being "make or break" and the political chattering classes saying a Hillary win would be tantamount to sealing the deal, I think a process that moves on to the other early states (and, hopefully to at least Tsunami Tuesday) with two or three viable candidates will make the eventual nominee stronger as a general election candidate.

Despite Mr. Nagourney's concerns, if there are three Senators still standing on Friday morning, it will be a good day for Democrats. It will be a good day for America.

Political Junkies' Nirvana

The Iowa newspaper of record, The Des Moines Register has released a new poll in the closing days before the caucuses illustrating once again why this may be the best of times for self-described political junkies like myself.

The contest is TOO CLOSE TO CALL. Make that BOTH contests.

I'm not sure if it could get any better than this - except to say the quick succession of primary contests means the nomination battle's frantic race to the (likely) Tsunami Tuesday finish line will mean the rollercoaster ride will be far too short.

The top Democratic headline from the DMR: "New Iowa Poll: Obama Widens Lead Over Clinton" announces Obama has opened the largest lead (32%-25% over Clinton) any candidate has enjoyed over the course of the year-long campaign in the Hawkeye State. But David Yepsen, the journalistic dean of Iowa politics writes (in the same Register) about the risk of making predictions from this poll.

• Some support is soft. Of those who have decided on a candidate, 34 percent of the Democrats say they could still be persuaded to change their minds. Among Republicans, it's 46 percent.

  A lot of caucus-goers are first-timers. A whopping 60 percent of the Democrats say this would be their first time at a caucus. Some 40 percent of the Republicans say that.

  A lot of Democratic caucus-goers aren't all that Democratic. Some 40 percent of the Democratic caucus-goers say they are independents, and another 5 percent say they are Republicans. (Technically, they'll all have to re-register as Democrats to participate, but that can be done at the caucus site.) Put another way, 54 percent of the Democratic caucus-goers say they're Democrats. In 2004, it was 80 percent.

What this all means is Obama's "widening lead" is built on a very soft (and unpredictable) foundation. Many other polls taken during the same period weight previous caucus-goers more heavily. These polls continue to show a tight three-way race. Any of the leading campaigns can build a strong case for finishing first Thursday night.

Digging deeper into the numbers, it's interesting to see the issues divide between the GOP and Dem voters going into the caucuses. Immigration looms large on the Republican side while only 3% mention healthcare as an issue. Only 3% of Democrats are concerned about immigration; they're motivated by the war in Iraq and healthcare.

As a Democrat,the best news from the DMR poll may be this nugget (again from Yepsen):

* Democrats are on fire. And what if 40 percent of the Democratic caucus-goers are independents and 5 percent are Republicans? That tells us the GOP is in real trouble, that a lot of Americans want change and that they are turning to the Democrats to find it.

"Hold on, boys and girls, strap yourselves in and please keep your arms and legs inside the car. This rollercoaster is going to be unlike any other you've ever been on."