Iowa A Key Test for Democrats

A Race That May Look Like A Runaway In National Polls Is A Lot Closer In Iowa

(Washingtonpost.com)  By Dan Balz and Alec MacGillis

From the high altitude of national polls, the race for the Democratic nomination may seem a potential runaway for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.). From ground level in the state with the nation's first presidential caucuses, a far different reality exists. Here Clinton's path remains strewn with obstacles.

Iowa has become ground zero in the Democratic race. The results here could instantly change the dynamic of what has been a campaign marked elsewhere by Clinton's relentless march forward. Here the Democratic front-runner faces stiff challenges not only from Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) but also from former senator John Edwards (N.C.).

Clinton's Iowa problem has been evident from the day she entered the race in January, and it is the result of a confluence of factors that appear to exist nowhere else in the country right now. They include support for Edwards that far outpaces his backing elsewhere, the spillover effect of Obama's next-door-neighbor status as a senator from Illinois and strong organizational efforts by both her rivals.

"I think it's a function of the others running so strong here, it's difficult [for her] to break away," said Iowa Democratic Party Chairman Scott Brennan.

Part of the problem rests with Clinton herself. "When she became a candidate, she attracted the largest percentage of negatives among Democrats of any of the candidates," said J. Ann Selzer, who conducts the Iowa Poll for the Des Moines Register. "She's got people who just don't like her."

Clinton has made progress over the course of eight months of campaigning, easing but not yet erasing doubts about her support for the Iraq war and perceptions of her as cool and aloof. One sign of that progress came in a new Iowa Poll, published in today's Des Moines Register, showing her leading with 29 percent, Edwards at 23 percent and Obama at 22 percent.

Still, that Clinton has not fully solved her image problem is evident by the name her campaign has given to the bus tour she begins Monday in Cedar Rapids. They have dubbed it the "Middle Class Express" tour, as if to remind voters that she cares about the problems of hard-working Iowans.

Teresa Vilmain, Clinton's Iowa director, said the senator from New York has made "great strides since spring" in reaching Iowa voters, but she was quick to add: "We have a lot of work to do. John Edwards is still very strong."

Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller, an Obama supporter, said factors that influence national polls -- including a candidate's name identification and being seen as a front-runner -- are less important in Iowa because voters have more direct contact with candidates.
"Here it's a real campaign, where people are seeing the candidates close up, hearing speeches, they're being contacted by staff and volunteers," he said. "It's a much more active and intense campaign, and people are getting a much bigger, clearer view of the candidates than people are nationally. That's a huge difference."

Clinton has much on the line in Iowa, but so, too, do Obama and Edwards. They know that stopping Clinton here is essential. A defeat for Edwards probably would end his campaign, and he has said as much. Obama aides play down expectations by repeating the mantra that he has to only "do well" in Iowa, but the candidate's wife, Michelle, said recently that, if he loses here, the campaign will have been but a dream.

Clinton may be able to survive a loss in Iowa, but many strategists believe that a loss to Obama would be far more crippling than a loss to Edwards.

The intensity of the campaign here is astonishing. Obama spent four days crisscrossing the northeast quadrant of the state last week. Edwards is retracing some of those steps this weekend with a four-day swing of his own. Clinton was to arrive Saturday night for a four-day tour. No other state, including New Hampshire, has seen such a concentration of campaigning.

Obama already has spent just over $3 million on television ads. With the heaviest barrage of advertising still to come, he will set records for TV spending. Clinton, who has spent about $1.4 million by one estimate, could do the same before the Iowa campaign is over.

Clinton is not even the second-largest spender on television ads at this point. New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson has put down $1.8 million for a series of humorous commercials that have helped him gain some momentum.

But Richardson, Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (Del.) and Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (Conn.) -- all with at least pockets of support -- struggle against the reality that the three leading candidates are waging a precinct-by-precinct battle of organizers that they are so far ill-equipped to match.

Obama has an army of field operators in the state, deployed from 31 field offices, compared with 22 for Clinton and 15 for Edwards. His advisers refuse to give out the number of staffers on the ground here, but it is believed to be far in excess of the numbers Clinton and Edwards have recruited.

At his rallies, Obama rarely forgets to praise his "underpaid and under-appreciated" field organizers, and they are diligent about educating people about the caucus process.

Edwards's crowds and Iowa staff are smaller in numbers, but the breadth of his support worries his rivals. Building on his second-place finish here in 2004, Edwards has spent the past three years nurturing a base spread across a state whose caucus rules reward balanced support everywhere more than concentrated support in a few areas.

Already Edwards has visited 76 of Iowa's 99 counties, compared with 56 counties for Obama and 31 for Clinton.

All the campaigns report that well over half of the prospective caucus attendees are undecided at this point, and the history of the caucuses is that a sizable percentage of voters do not make a final decision until the final few weeks before the voting.

When all the candidates came to Iowa last month for Sen. Tom Harkin's annual steak fry, Linda Bollenbaugh of Boone was among the more than 15,000 Democrats in the crowd. She carried placards for Clinton, Obama, Edwards and Biden, and said Richardson's speech impressed her, too.

An Edwards backer in 2004, she said she is now undecided and paying very close attention. "I'm looking for more depth now, more details," she said.

Staff writer Perry Bacon Jr. contributed to this report.

[jack3213]

What we need is Ralph Nader to take the far left liberal votes away fro her. She is tough to beat but it is defiantely possible. Ever since her hubby stepped up and made the announcement in so many words it is about him, as well, it was a step backwards, and far too late to fix. Sorry, hon, you''re done, just a matter of time.

[cbs_oliver]

I''m for Kucinich.

I might settle for Edwards.

They seem the only candidates with values close to what I understand as Christ''s values.

Hillary and Obama have values which seem to me like the values of the Romans.

Not what I want.

[ioweign]

FORCE everyone to BUY insurance from these F*cking insurance corporations. No wonder she is corporate America''''s little darling.

Posted by mh4cbs1 at 11:52 PM : Oct 07, 2007


Where do you get your healthcare now ??

Or are you like the illegal immigrants ??

[brianbwb-2009]

Both "parties are equally corrupt, the next president will also be an idiot, controlled by corruption, but the Republicans, who let their minions add racial and religious intolerance and advocate genocide, and whose leader is already guilty of treason, should be expunged from the government, as they no longer represent the large majority of Americans, if one considers that the majority of voting age Americans don''t vote for either side'' and of the remainder that does vote, the majority now disagree with the fascism espoused by the Republicans.

[mh4cbs1]

Hillary''s solution to universal healthcare?

FORCE everyone to BUY insurance from these F*cking insurance corporations. No wonder she is corporate America''s little darling.

She wants to "bring the troops home", but she has every intention of leaving permanent US bases in Iraq, and intends to secure the Iraqi Oil for American corporations, SUVs and Hummers.

If Hillary wins the nomination I will vote Green Party, for sure.

[glaswolf]

If Dobson leads the judeo christian right out of the Republican party, the Democratic party could rearrange itself, and a lot of Reagan Democrats will vote for a non religiously rabid Republican over Clinton or Obama. I agree the Republican party has its best chance against these two, it is possible they could make headway in congress. also. Edwards and Richardson are probably the only certain democratic candidates that could defeat a Republican presidential candidate. Note the problem solving projections of both tend to be the most substantive. Richardson has proven himself as an international negotiator for the US, and Edwards has demonstrated his ability to engage big business networked interests successfully. We need content not jingoism, we need strength not posturing.

[sftodd]

the left-wing loons like you will never get your MoveOn.org utopia.
Posted by fredgrad2000 at 09:59 PM : Oct 07, 2007

It''s already here, Freddy, that''s why I get to call your hero, our idiot-in-chief, a complete moron!!! :-) If you and your nutjobs had it your way, there would be no freedom of speech in this country. Hillary will be our president! Happy days are here again! :-)

[fredgrad2000]

...I absolutely love it; the Dems will most likely win in 2008, but your candidate is going to be Hillary, who voted for the invasion of Iraq, who believes there is a war on terror and will continue with the fight in Iraq and afghanistan (there will be 80k-100K troops in Iraq thru her 1st term!!), who will universalize healthcare but only thru the existing private system, and who has only voted recently to cut off Iraq funding to appease some of the left-wing of the Dem party...the best opportunity in 50 years for the left to really strike; and you best you''''''''ll be getting is indeed Bush-lite!!! HAHAHAHAHAHA . . .
Posted by fredgrad2000 at 05:47 PM : Oct 07, 2007

Sorry Fred, but you''''re the idiot here. Hillary did those things because she had her eye on the prize -- once she gets into office, you''''ll find out why your conservative nutcase friends hate her so much. Too bad, so sad, it''''s inevitable. :-)"

We''ll see Toad, we''ll see...remember her husband bombed nations without UN or French approval too; how far from his foreign policy do you think she will be? Especially if she''s sending him out as "roaming ambassador"; my point still holds; the left-wing loons like you will never get your MoveOn.org utopia.

[sftodd]

Vote for Hillary who has voted every step of the wy with Bush but campaigns as if she didn''''t?
EXACTLY why my CONSERVATIVE music Cd spanks her, Ward Churchill and the rest.
Posted by conserva at 07:27 PM : Oct 07, 2007

Conserva -- your CD spanks everyone who listens to it -- you should give it to the Bush administration -- it''s got to be the most effective method of torture I''ve seen.

[sparks224]

"Yes, she tried to stop the massive rip-off being perpetrated by Big Health Insurance...."
Posted by sparks224

The sad irony here is that now she''s on their payroll and pushing the idea of "universal health INSURANCE".

[sparks224]

"Oh yeah - like Hillary can fix healthcare. Gee, didn''''t she try this before, with failed results ?"
Posted by speakinup

Yes, she tried to stop the massive rip-off being perpetrated by Big Health Insurance. They sabotaged her efforts and then pointed their finger and said "look she failed". And you fell for it because you''re an idiot.

[socrates392]

Posted by speakinup at 07:28 PM : Oct 07, 2007

I actually don''t like Clinton very much. I simply gave a stupid answer to your stupid question.

[j-whitman]

speakinup,,,, You''ve got the parties confused girl,, It''s republiclan who blindly elect their leaders ---- Bush is the most corrupt dishonoralbe & incompetent President in our nations history, some of us did our homework prior to 2000 elections

[middleman8]

What a stupid election system. People screaming at you to give them money so they can tell you to vote for them, and this B S goes on for years at a time. At the same time the government is screaming about "THE TERRORIST ARE COMING" while the medical system robs the people who have money, blind and 40 million people don''t receive any medical attention. Doesn''t that tell you the whole country is f---d up? So get out and vote,BUT DON''T
BE KNOCKING OTHER COUNTRIES THAT HAVE LEFT u s IN THE DUST.

[speakinup]

"And she doesn''t hang out in bathroom stalls looking for dates. Posted by hungry1968

Yup - I suppose that would be a good value - guess that leaves out ALL other democrates - right?

ok - Seriously - just WHAT has she done that has made her the front runner of your party ? Can either you or socrates392 tell me ANYTHING she has done ? So far, George Soros could compete with what you''ve told me...

Oh - a by the way - she voted to invade Iraq - so don''t push that issue too much - ok ?

Or, do the dems just blindly vote for people, without knowing pshit about their candidates. Seems like you all work on after the fact type info, rather than accepting responsibiity for decisions made before having 100% of the facts in. (by which time events typically have made your choice irrelevent)

[hungry1968]

So - what makes Hillary a viable candidate - anyone?
Posted by speakinup at 07:07 PM : Oct 07, 2007



She not a republican, war mongering, American soldier killing, neo con, member of the industrial military complex.

And she doesn''t hang out in bathroom stalls looking for dates.

[socrates392]

Posted by speakinup at 07:07 PM : Oct 07, 2007

She''s raises more money than anyone else and is leading in the national polls . . .

[speakinup]

So - what makes Hillary a viable candidate - anyone?

[speakinup]

Oh yeah - like Hillary can fix healthcare. Gee, didn''t she try this before, with failed results ?

The woman is only one thing - an idiot for staying with Bill.

[hungry1968]

We are 37th in health care in the world! American health care is probably the biggest rip-off in a nation of rip-offs. It costs us more to be 37th!
I don''''t want to be taxed to pay for Big Bertha''''s cardiac cath, her three blood pressure meds, her insulin and the ambulance rides to the ER! Not when Big Bertha and Fat Al can take Strauss Heart drops, eat right, exercise and cost me absolutely nothing--and have a better life for themselves! To hell with National Health--its just going to subsidize the status quo.
Posted by Prinzowhales at 04:40 PM : Oct 07, 2007



Under the current broken system, YOU ARE PAYING for big Bertha - if she doesn''t have a job and is on Medicaid. Or if she does have insurance, and her HMO refuses to pay the bill, (which is what the claims adjusters are instructed to do - deny payments), and the hospital / doctor gets stuck with no one paying the bill. The next time that you go the doctor / hospital, YOUR payments are higher. Or your insurance companies payments are higher - which they pass on to your employer.

Nobody wins under the current system, except the fat cats at the top of the food chain - the CEO''s and the directors of the insurance companies and hospitals, with their 6 and 7 figure incomes.

With the federal government taking over, they''ll be in a position to reign in the costs, because it won''t be a "for profit" system anymore.