Campaign '07: The Year That Was And Wasn't

This analysis was written by Vaughn Ververs, senior political editor for CBSNews.com.

Year one of the longest presidential campaign in history comes to a close with far less clarity that it had when candidates began announcing their intentions and raising money last January. After thousands of speeches, dozens of televised debates, hundreds of millions of dollars raised and spent, 2008 dawns with the nominations of both major political parties completely up for grabs.

But it hasn't been an uneventful year by any measure and the events of 2007 are almost certain to have as much to do with the outcome of the nomination battles, and the general election itself, as what happens between now and November. We may yet be surprised at which arguments, flubs or utterances made in the past year come back to play a starring role in the general election, but here is a look back at the developments and dynamics that shaped the first half of campaign 2008.

A New Force Emerges: While it can be said that every formal announcement is an important event in a campaign, the entry of Illinois Senator Barack Obama was a unique event, one which changed the very nature of the race.

Standing on the steps of the Old State Capitol in Springfield, Illinois on a frigid February day, his formal announcement instantly transformed the Democratic nominating contest. Four years earlier, Obama was a little-known state senator. His electrifying speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention and subsequent elevation to the U.S. Senate made Obama an instant superstar -- not just a fresh face but a generational leader.

His ability to match, and early on to surpass, the fundraising machine of Senator Hillary Clinton demonstrated that Obama was no flash-in-the-pan phenom but a real contender. A different kind of black leader, one not defined by the civil rights movement of the past, Obama has amassed a coalition of highly educated progressives, African Americans and independents and enters the first primary contests locked in a dead-heat with Clinton. Obama's decision to run now, rather than wait four or even eight years, turned the Democratic race from a likely coronation into a real dogfight.

A Front-Runner Stumbles: Despite Obama's entry and fund-raising ability, Clinton remained the prohibitive front-runner for most of 2007. As a candidate, Clinton remained nearly flawless in the early going. During the numerous candidate debates, the New York Senator was unflappable, quick-witted and above the fray. For someone selling experience and steadiness, it couldn't have been going much better.

But when the candidates met in Philadelphia for a debate in late October, the aura of invincibility began coming apart. Answering questions about a proposal by the governor of New York to allow illegal immigrants to obtain drivers' licenses, Clinton appeared to support the idea before opposing it. A minor flub immediately pierced the aura of invincibility and opened the gates for the concerns which have surrounded the former First Lady since the end of her husband's administration.

Being a Clinton means plenty of baggage on the political trail. Democratic activists already angry with her previous support of the Iraq war were given voice to wonder whether political expediency or principles guided her positions. Arguments about the polarizing nature of her candidacy began gaining more resonance. And when former President Bill Clinton emerged as a vocal supporter of her effort - and a critic of her opponents - the specter of 1990s politics resurfaced as a potent force in the campaign.

Clinton ends the year as a near-underdog in Iowa but with a level of institutional support that most candidates can only dream of. Still, the door is open for Obama or even John Edwards, the party's former vice presidential nominee, to burst through.

A Candidate-In-Theory-Only: For the first nine months of 2007, uncertainty and dissatisfaction hung over the Republican party. The GOP entered the year having lost its majority control in Congress and saddled with an unpopular war and president. Perhaps more unnerving for party stalwarts early on was the lack of a single presidential contender who satisfied the party's different wings.

In John McCain, many rank-and-file party members saw a respected war hero who had been a steadfast defender of the war in Iraq, if not the strategy used to fight it. They also saw a "maverick" with a habit of sticking his finger in the eyes of activists on issues ranging from immigration to campaign finance reform and evangelical activism. Mitt Romney brought a golden reputation as a businessman and organizer but his new devotion to key orthodoxies like abortion made many wary of him. Rudy Giuliani brought a no-nonsense approach to national security and terrorism but flat-out disagreed with the base on social issues.

Polls throughout the year indicated that wide swaths of the party were unsatisfied with the choices being presented them, and in that void former Senator Fred Thompson stepped in - or, rather, tip-toed in. As early as last June, the buzz surrounding his possible entry threatened to overshadow the rest of the field. Thompson regularly topped polls and dominated the discussion.

But June quickly turned into July, then August and finally September. And while Thompson continued to work and plot his campaign behind the scenes, candidates like Romney, Giuliani, McCain and Mike Huckabee continued to run and build toward the early contests. When Thompson did enter the race, he waded in rather than leapt. A lackluster campaign schedule and less-than-electrifying performance on the trail led to the perception that Thompson was at best an unenthusiastic warrior or at worst, lazy.

The failure of Thompson to ignite dissatisfied Republicans opened the door for Huckabee's meteoric rise in November and December. Had social conservatives flocked to Thompson, as many expected, he and not Huckabee might well be competing hard for first place in Iowa. And unlike Huckabee, Thompson had the support of many establishment figures who could put together an organization. Should he fail to win the nomination, Thompson's odd approach to presidential politics will become a case study for how not to run.

An Insurgent Rises: Given the failure of Thompson to rally the forces of social conservatives, it was perhaps inevitable that another candidate would fill that void in the Republican Party. But the dramatic rise of Mike Huckabee surprised even longtime political observers.

In August, Huckabee first demonstrated the potential to turn his under-funded effort into a real grassroots movement. With little money, organization or expectations, Huckabee managed to place a strong second in the Republican straw poll. While candidates like Romney and Sam Brownback poured hundreds of thousands, or millions, into the GOP fund-raising event, Huckabee spent almost nothing, relying on his strong debate performances and conservative message to woo activists.

While gaining a foothold, Huckabee appeared ill-prepared to capitalize on his straw poll showing, particularly considering that candidates like Giuliani and McCain skipped the event altogether. But in October, the former Arkansas Governor used a gathering of mostly evangelical social conservatives to catapult himself into the top tier of the presidential campaign.

Conservatives still uneasy about their candidate choices gathered at an influential Values Voters conference in Washington, DC, where Huckabee wowed the crowd and began cementing himself as the social conservative choice in the race. With Thompson failing to fill the void among social conservatives in the party, the conference enabled Huckabee to begin turning his impressive rhetorical abilities into on-the-ground support in Iowa among the groups which have fueled his rise there.

The Big Gamble: Rudy Giuliani was at one point in time considered his party's giant-killer. Despite his status as mayor of New York City - an anathema to Republicans normally - Giuliani was all that stood between the party and a potential Senator Clinton in the spring of the year 2000. The mayor bowed out of that race after being diagnosed with prostate cancer and enduring a publicly embarrassing divorce while Hillary Clinton all but waltzed into the Senate.

But after 9/11, Giuliani was born again in the GOP as a leader in the midst of crisis and a general in the war on terror. As such, Giuliani entered the race in a position of national strength. In spite of his apostasies on such core party issue as abortion, gay marriage and gun control, he was the new sheriff in the party and accorded a measure of respect and forgiveness that would have been unthinkable just a few years ago.

For all the goodwill accorded him, Giuliani has thus far failed to cash in. Indeed, he appears determined to prove the viability of a strategy which has never succeeded. Rather than stake a claim in one of the early states - Iowa, New Hampshire or South Carolina - Giuliani has put all of his chips in the delegate-rich states falling weeks after the contest has begun.

On the face of it, such a strategy looks to be a good bet. Social conservatives in Iowa and South Carolina or rascally independents in New Hampshire are well outside of Giuliani's core base. More moderate Republicans in states like Florida, California, New York, etc., are his natural reserve of support and show up in much larger numbers. But can any candidate afford to wait until five or six very intense competitions pass before making a move? Will Giuliani become a mere afterthought by the time Florida votes on January 29th? It is by far the biggest strategic gamble of any campaign in this cycle. And the success of it will determine whether Giuliani once again becomes his party's best hope or fades into the background in a repeat of his 2000 senate bid.

In ? We Trust: Always a factor in American politics, religion surfaced in 2007 in a manner never before seen. Mike Huckabee garnered attention when he proclaimed himself a "Christian leader" and hailed the "birth of Christ" in television advertisements. But those were simply traditional concerns in a very non-traditional discussion.

When Mitt Romney delivered a much-anticipated address on the role of faith in politics, it gave voice to an issue that continues to churn beneath the surface. Romney's Mormon faith has been seen as a detriment to his aspirations within the Republican Party since before he announced. Evangelical suspicions of the faith were not put to rest by his attempt to tie the traditions together. In fact, just this past weekend it was revealed that those suspicions were being exploited in the conservative state of South Carolina.

On the Democratic side, Obama has been dogged by his Islamic heritage - his father was Muslim although he himself is a member of a Christian church in Chicago. Despite that fact, the rumors have persisted, aided along by Obama's middle name, Hussein. At least two Clinton aides in Iowa have resigned after admitting to forwarding e-mails tying Obama to the Islamic faith.

Polls have consistently shown that Americans are unwilling to vote for a Mormon candidate and are unsure which faith Obama in fact belongs to. In the end, faith could play a more pivotal role in both nomination process than it ever has before.

Issues? What Issues? A year that started out as a referendum on the war in Iraq ends with more emphasis on celebrity and personality than any specific issues. The assassination of Pakistani leader Benazir Bhutto suddenly thrust foreign affairs back into the spotlight for the first time in months. And while uncertainty in international affairs could well cause some primary voters to reassess their decisions, 2007 was spent on different concerns.

For both, personality and positioning has dominated the landscape but especially among Democrats. Hillary Clinton spent a good chunk of the spring and early summer fending off attacks on her support of the Iraq war and justifying her refusal to apologize for her vote authorizing it. But as summer wore into fall, it became less about the relatively minor differences over policy and more about broad themes and attitudes. There's no doubt that more Americans could accurately name the candidate supported by Oprah Winfrey than could explain the differences in health care proposals.

Among Republicans, immigration supplanted war and terrorism concerns as a policy litmus test. To be sure, social concerns like abortion and religion have played a part, that too has been more attitudinal than specific. The major source of tension has been believability rather than specific differences.

The relative lack of policy differences in both parties were on display in the 20-plus debates held in 2007. Among Democrats, the sharpest differences were voiced by gadfly candidates like Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel while Clinton, Obama and Edwards fought over the margins. On the Republican side, libertarian-minded Ron Paul served as the voice of opposition to established orthodoxy, jousting with Giuliani, Romney and McCain alike.

The Process Dominates: For decades the primacy of Iowa and New Hampshire in the nominating process has been under fire from many of the other 48 states looking for a piece of the lucrative and attention-getting action. While past cycles have seen rogue challenges from the likes of Delaware and Michigan, 2007 began the first all-out assault on the calendar. En mass, mega-states like California, New York and Florida began moving their primary dates earlier in hopes of muscling out Iowa and New Hampshire.

While the national parties have attempted to stem the chaos by striping states moving to dates outside of party guidelines, such disciplinary actions were not enough to avoid creating a process in which voters will begin making their preferences known just three days into the new year. And, with over half of all states voting on or before February 5th, it's likely that at least one nomination battle will be decided a full ten months before the general election, the effects of which will likely change the dynamics of the election in was that can only be guessed at.

Money: Two candidates are nearly certain to top the $100 million mark in campaign donations for 2007 and in the first nine months of the year, nearly $50 million had been spent on campaign ads, according to one analysis of campaign spending. Evan Tracey, the chief operating officer of TNS Media Intelligence/Campaign Media Analysis Group, told the Boston Globe that he expects total ad spending in the presidential race to reach at least $800 million. And Tracey estimates that campaign ad spending at all levels will top $3 billion.

For the first time in recent history, nominees of both parties are expected to opt out of public financing, which limits spending. The increased activity by "outside" groups and so-called "527" organizations will make this the most expensive election ever.

When the 2008 campaign story is written next December, it will certainly speak of events that have yet to be thought of. But the year 2007 will forever have a unique place in presidential campaign history.