Democrats Eye Electability In Iowa

Do National Polls Matter When The Early Caucuses Speak So Much Louder?

(CBS)  It’s exactly one year to the next election, but that’s not the date most on the mind of the Democratic frontrunner.

“Gotta be ready for the 3rd!” said Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y.

That’s January 3 - the Iowa caucuses - the first votes cast. Clinton’s lead in the national polls is much smaller in Iowa - six points - compared to New Hampshire, where she has a decisive lead. Iowa is the best chance for Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and former Sen. John Edwards to stop her, CBS News chief White House correspondent Jim Axelrod reports.

“A big national poll doesn’t mean anything,” said Des Moines Register chief political writer David Yepsen. “It will evaporate overnight if somebody beats Hillary Clinton here.”

The states in Iowa, coupled with Clinton’s first stumbles in last week’s debate, have injected a new intensity into the race.

Obama, running as an outsider and uniter, had been timid in his attacks. Not anymore.

“Yes, she’s been run so far what Washington would call a textbook campaign,” Obama said. “The problem I have, and the disagreement we have is the textbook itself.”

Edwards has been even sharper, taking on her votes for war in Iraq, and a recent resolution targeting Iran.

“She’s voting like a hawk in Washington, but talking like a dove in Iowa and New Hampshire,” Edwards said on the campaign trail.

Clinton, positioning herself as the candidate of experience, is trying to seem at ease with what will be eight more weeks of sniping.

“If can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen, and I'm very much at home in the kitchen, so I think I'll stick around,” Clinton said.

Iraq, the economy, health care - all are important to Democrats, but if Iowa is any indication, what matters more than anything is a candidate’s electability.

“People don't go around with a checklist of issues. They look at candidates as individuals,” Yepsen said. “Do they like them? Do they trust them? And that's an intangible that's hard to quantify.”

This time four years ago, the eventual nominee, John Kerry, was running sixth in Iowa. He came from way behind in the last few weeks.

When caucus-goers were asked why they supported him, they said, “simple. He was the most electable candidate.”

[topprophet]

These free trade deals and world governmental organizations that all of the candidates except Ron Paul support like the ICC, NAFTA, GATT, WTO, and CAFTA are all a threat to our sovereignty as a nation. They transfer power from our government to unelected foreign elites. The ICC wants to try our soldiers as war criminals. Both the WTO and CAFTA could force Americans to get a doctor''s prescription to take herbs and vitamins. The WTO has forced Congress to change our laws to meet their needs, not our own. If anything, the WTO makes trade relations worse by giving foreign competitors a new way to attack U.S. jobs. NAFTA''s superhighway is just one part of a plan to erase the borders between the U.S. and Mexico, called the North American Union. This spawn of powerful special interests, would create a single nation out of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, with a new unelected bureaucracy and money system, and forget about controlling immigration under this NAU scheme. A free America, with limited, constitutional government, would be gone forever. Let''s not forget the UN. It wants to impose a direct Carbon Tax on us. Ron Paul successfully fought this move in Congress last year, but if we are going to stop ongoing attempts of this world government body to rule over us, we will need a strong leader in the White House. We must withdraw from any organizations and trade deals that infringe upon the freedom and sovereignty of the United States of America. Vote America First. Vote for Ron Paul.

[jamespapa-2009]

Almost everyone is talking about the electability issue for the Democrat candidates (Clinton vs Obama). I think that''s missing the point. The point is, in a general election, who can beat the Republican attack machine, Clinton or Obama? So far, all indications point to Clinton. She has been in politics much longer than Obama and had gone through Bill''s campaign. She is a master politician. If the Democrats want to win this election at all cost, choose the candidate who wants to win the election at all cost - Clinton. Obama is too mild and too inexperienced to withstand the onslaught of the Republican attack machine. He should just wait another 8 years for his turn.

[siete-pesos]

not one southern state will vote for hillary...

guaranteed,
warranteed,
money back guarantee,
double your money back guarantee,
will kizz yo'' azz guarantee,
bet my life on it guarantee,
bet my wife on it guarantee,
bet my daughter''s virginity on it guarantee.

ha,ha,ha.

bush loving, southern, republican christian snakes...

nothing good comes out of the south.

[chirumbolo]

"When caucus-goers were asked why they supported [Kerry], they said, %u201Csimple. He was the most electable candidate.%u201D "

Exactly.

Iowa caucus goers don''t care about the b.s. spin (read newideas1 post from 8:30pm - pure spin).

Most electable is why Hillary Clinton is going to dust O-Bomb-A and Edwards in Iowa.

[newideas1]

Hillary is imploding. It''s time for Democratic party voters to make real choices and stand behind a candidate who will do the same. The country deserves a President who knows where he or she stands. Voters can make a difference, especially in the primaries. Pick a candidate. Support your candidate. Stand by your candidate. Do not sell out!