Horserace
November 12, 2007 7:48 AM

Starting Gate: Obama Wows 'Em In Iowa

(AP)
The Barack Obama boomlet has apparently begun. The Illinois senator is getting rave reviews for his speech at the Iowa Democratic Party's Jefferson-Jackson dinner Saturday night.

Want the evidence? Here’s what Iowa's premier political handicapper, David Yepsen, had to say on his Des Moines Register blog about the speech: "It was one of the best of his campaign. The passion he showed should help him close the gap on Hillary Clinton by tipping some undecided caucus-goers his way. His oratory was moving and he successfully contrasted himself with the others - especially Clinton - without being snide or nasty about it. … Should he win the Iowa caucuses, Saturday’s dinner will be remembered as one of the turning points in his campaign in here."

Since Clinton stumbled in the last debate, there has been an air of anticipation surrounding Obama and John Edwards. Would one of them capitalize on the slip and begin to emerge as the alternative to Clinton's seeming march to the nomination? Sure, it's one event, one speech and plenty of road left before the January caucuses. And Obama faces big questions about his strategy. Although all accounts point to a strong organization in the state, it's not at all a slam-dunk that the campaign can harness its support among young and non-traditional caucus-goers, especially just two days after New Years.

Still, it's hard to miss the hype over Obama's candidacy lately. He's managed to be aggressive without being negative for now. Most importantly, his stepped up criticisms of Clinton looks to have answered questions about whether Obama has the mettle to go the distance. After being out-raised by Clinton in the third quarter of this year, and poll after poll outside of Iowa showing the New York Senator with a commanding lead, Obama's campaign appeared to stall. Now, he's reviving his pitch for change – not just in the party controlling the White House but a more fundamental brand.

"If we are really serious about winning this election, Democrats, then we can't live in fear of losing," Obama told Iowa Democrats. "This party, the party of Jefferson and Jackson and Roosevelt and Kennedy, has always made the biggest difference in the lives of the American people when we led not by polls but by principle, not by calculation but by conviction, when we summoned the entire nation to . . . a higher purpose."

Obama rose to national prominence based partly on his rhetorically soaring speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. For much of this year, he's not repeated that performance. If he can build on his speech this weekend, the Obama boomlet may yet turn into something resembling the movement his candidacy has promised.


Clinton Support Slips In New Hampshire: Iowa may have dominated the political landscape over the weekend but don’t forget about that other important early state – New Hampshire. While the January 3rd caucuses will go a long way toward setting the table for New Hampshire's primary, the two states haven’t always agreed on their candidates. And the Granite State has a recent history of sending a message to the front-runners, especially in the GOP contests.

John McCain thrashed George Bush in 2000 and Pat Buchanan defeated Bob Dole there in 1996. In 1992, New Hampshire made Bill Clinton the "comeback kid" but in 2004, the state validated John Kerry's Iowa victory. While the primary date is still not set, the betting is that New Hampshire will vote on January 8th, giving the candidates just five days to either capitalize on their Iowa victories or to correct course.

A new poll shows a fluid contest in both parties. Hillary Clinton, who has held a much larger lead in New Hampshire than Iowa, has seen her support slip nearly 10 points since September in the Boston Globe poll. The poll shows the front-runner with a still-healthy lead over Obama, 35 percent to 21 percent. On the Republican side, Mitt Romney leads Rudy Giuliani 32 percent to 20 percent with McCain at 17 percent. A Marist College poll showed similar results.


Campaign Intrigue: Sometimes a there's more than curiosity behind the questions on the campaign trail. The Clinton campaign has acknowledged that a student at Grinnell College in Iowa was approached by a staffer who suggested she ask the candidate a question about climate change. "One of the senior staffers told me what [to ask]," Muriel Gallo-Chasanoff said after the question and answer session. "On this occasion a member of our staff did discuss a possible question about Sen. Clinton's energy plan at a forum," spokesman Mo Elleithee said. "However, Sen. Clinton did not know which questioners she was calling on during the event. This is not standard policy and will not be repeated again."

Don’t look for this to die down anytime soon as it's especially good fodder for her opponents. Edwards seized on the revelation with this criticism: "George Bush goes to events that are staged where people are screened where they’re only allowed to ask questions if the questions are favorable to george bush and set up in his favor. That’s not the way democracy works in Iowa. And that’s not the way it works in New Hampshire. ... And we don’t stage questions. We go in and answer the questions that are asked. And that’s the way it’s supposed to work in the caucus process. And I think this is the kind of thing George Bush himself has done.”




Around The Track

  • Clinton and Giuliani are maintaining their large leads in Florida. Clinton leads Obama 48 percent to 24 percent while Giuliani bests Romney 36 percent to 19 percent in a new poll conducted for a consortium of Florida media outlets. Florida's primary is slated for January 19th.

  • Romney tells New Hampshire voters that he's unlikely to deliver a speech about his religion – at least for now. "I'm happy to answer any questions people have about my faith and do so pretty regularly," Romney said about the attention given to his Mormon faith. "Is there going to be a special speech? Perhaps, at some point. I sort of like the idea myself. The political advisers tell me no, no, no — it's not a good idea. It draws too much attention to that issue alone."

  • Fred Thompson is stepping up the pace and trying to shake the perception that he doesn't have the fire-in-the-belly for a winning campaign.

  • Chicago Sun-Times' Lynn Sweet caught up with Clinton booster Terry McAuliffe at the J-J dinner in Iowa and the former DNC chair had words of warning for Clinton's primary opponents. "They want to get negative against us, they want to get frisky, that’s their decision," he said. "I tell you this, though. You go negative at your peril. In Iowa they don’t like it.”

  • Rudy, Hillary and Mitt – why are we on a first-name basis with so many of our presidential candidates?
  • Tags:
    Obama ,
    Clinton ,
    Iowa
    Topics:
    Starting Gate
    Add a Comment See all 12 Comments
    by debbs7 November 12, 2007 1:18 PM PST
    ...so, a young kid wows them in Iowa and then lets Tim Russert make an *** of him on national tv the next day...

    WOW!
    Reply to this comment
    by debbs7 November 12, 2007 1:18 PM PST
    ...so, a young kid wows them in Iowa and then lets Tim Russert make an *** of him on national tv the next day...

    WOW!
    Reply to this comment
    by chirumbolo November 12, 2007 1:29 PM PST
    Wow! You read this article and you wonder what planet its author is living on?

    So you''ve got a single reporter who loved BO''s speech and suddenly a "boomlet" is formed? This is the same claptrap you folks in the mainstream media foisted on us when you created the Obama candidacy in the first place.

    Hint: Obama doesn''t hvae the experience and he''s not electable. Democrats see that and there''s no way he''ll be the nominee. Think Jerry Brown (and he was a big state Governor!).
    Reply to this comment
    by tbholsinger November 12, 2007 2:40 PM PST
    For anyone who wants a truly unbiased measure of a candidate''s electability, there are only two measures.

    1. Fund-raising.

    2. Polling Data. (But it has to be "apples-to-apples" polling data.)

    The reason that polling data is always "taken with a grain of salt", is because the interpretation of the data is so easily manipulated.

    The only "apples-to-apples" polling data that gives an objective measure of Republican candidates is from the states where the candidates have a somewhat comparable name recognition among those being polled. (IA, NH, SC, MI, NV.)

    Let''s take Pennslyvania for example. Is there any likely Republican voter in PA that hasn''t heard of Giuliani? Exactly, they all know all about him. Now, how about Romney? Exactly, there are a sizeable number who have NO idea who he is. (He would have to spend HUNDREDS of millions of dollars in advertising to have everyone know about him across all 50 states. Giulinan and Thompson already have that without spending a dime.)

    So is polling data from PA (or any of the other ~45 states where Romney hasn''t spent time/money campaigning) a measure of whether likely Republican voters like Giuliani better than Romney?

    Of course not. It''s simply a measure of who they have heard of.

    The real question that the media (and Republicans at large) need to be asking is why Giuliani''s polling numbers plummet in states where Romney is actively campaigning.
    Reply to this comment
    by bookwerm314 November 12, 2007 3:02 PM PST
    The biggest question, and one I hope we can work to answer in responses to this post, is how can we relate "grass roots" support for Barrack into him being the nominee? What is the mechanism? It is pretty clear to me that when I vote in the presidential election, I choose box A or B, but what about influencing the nomination? I want Barrack to get the nomination, and what can I personally do? It really isn''t clear, I can''t figure out why the primary matters as in Colorado it seems to be so late, my vote would not matter. Is it bugging delegates? Calling the Democratic party and telling them, "nominate Obama or I will be upset" ? I detest Hillary, and find her oily and a schoomzer. She has the appearance of difference without the reality of it. The others are also rans.. though Edwards talks a good game at times, he is not in Obama''s league. Ignoring Obama is like ignoring JFK and going with a stooge.
    Reply to this comment
    by alarina November 12, 2007 3:27 PM PST
    It''s nice to see favorable press about Senator Obama for a change. He tends to ''wow'' audiences wherever he goes, but it seems most of the media has been too intent on promoting the alleged front-runner to notice.

    To address a few comments...

    First of all, Senator Obama is 46 years old, a former civil rights attorney, constitutional law professor, state Senator and present U.S. Senator. Unless you are 110 years old and hopelessly senile, calling him a kid says more about you than it does him.

    Secondly, Senator Obama''s speech WAS incredibly moving and inspriring. This is hardly the only news organization acknowledging that fact. John Edwards also gave an excellent speech. Senator Biden came up a somewhat distant, but very respectable third, in my opinion.

    As for his appearance on Meet The Press, he gave honest, direct and complete answers and set Mr. Russert straight on more than a few misrepresentations of fact. It was a good interview. Mr. Russert was as tough as one should be when questioning someone running for the highest office in this country, and Senator Obama stood up to it the way he''ll stand up to any challenge he will face..like a man ready and very able to be our next president.





    Reply to this comment
    by valjeanne-2009 November 12, 2007 4:32 PM PST
    Wow did we watch the same event? John Edwards was the clear winner and yet he is not mentioned once, I know everyone who has watched it agree, even 2 people I know switched from Obama to Edwards. Media once again with their increasingly clear agenda. People wake up, do not let the corporate media chose our elected leaders....
    Reply to this comment
    by chard319 November 12, 2007 6:01 PM PST
    Obama spoke about how no one would be able to accuse him of voting for Iraq, or the problem with Iran, or for a AG who can''t answer a question about torture and many other things...the truth is no one can accuse him of voting for them because he didn''t even bother to show up to vote. He claims he''s against these things, yet he won''t bother to take the time to vote against them when it is his job to do so. I don''t know about anyone else, but it bothers me that he is being paid a salary from OUR tax dollars to do the job of a US Senator and he has the power to vote against these things that he is preaching against, yet he doesn''t think it is important to do so. Your being paid to be a Senator Obama, why don''t you do the job you actually have. The other candidates that are running can find the time in their campaigning schedules to vote, why can''t you. Why don''t you actually show us you really stand for these things by using your power to vote. Or are you too scared to stand up and vote against the controversial votes and too worried that it will be held against you later. You want to say the things that are hard for us to hear, why don''t you back it up with action instead of being all talk.
    Reply to this comment
    by jshepherd51 November 12, 2007 9:57 PM PST
    I didn''t get to watch the event saturday night, but from the news reports and comments by others, it appears that the media is still trying to get their choice chosen.Why do they write everything about HC and BO but don''t give any space to John Edwareds who is by all measures going to be the choice of the people in Iowa, and subsequently the choice of the Democrats at the convention.....just wait....when the rush starts there won''t be anything the pols and the media can do to stop the Edwards juggernaut! You''ll see! Mark my woreds.....Edwards for President!
    Reply to this comment
    by james086 November 12, 2007 10:22 PM PST
    If Iowa dems. elect Obama in the primary, they are givng the election to the republicans. Face it: we live in a country that will never elect a former Muslim named Barrak Hussien Obama who won''t even wear a flag pin as President of the United States.!!
    Reply to this comment
    by murnatam November 13, 2007 4:14 PM PST
    James086 wrote: "we live in a country that will never elect a former Muslim named Barrak Hussien Obama."

    James, check your facts, Obama was never a muslim. And please, next time speak only for yourself; millions of Americans are willing to vote for Obama if only bigots like you would resort to truth in your tactics.

    Thanks for letting the public know your views, but they are still your views, your opinions, so don''t project them unto millions of Americans who don''t think like you do.
    MurnaBlogs
    www.Murnagilbert.blogspot.com

    Reply to this comment
    by murnatam November 13, 2007 4:15 PM PST
    James086 wrote: "we live in a country that will never elect a former Muslim named Barrak Hussien Obama."

    James, check your facts, Obama was never a muslim. And please, next time speak only for yourself; millions of Americans are willing to vote for Obama if only bigots like you would resort to truth in your tactics.

    Thanks for letting the public know your views, but they are still your views, your opinions, so don''t project them unto millions of Americans who don''t think like you do.
    MurnaBlogs
    www.Murnagilbert.blogspot.com
    Reply to this comment
    See all 12 Comments

    About Horserace

    Description for Horserace

    Add to your favorite news reader
    google
    yahoo
    msn
    • MOST POPULAR
    • Viewed
    • Commented