Pure Horserace: Skipping Past Iowa

Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani have a lot more in common these days than their home state: They're both struggling with an Iowa problem.

Clinton and Giuliani are leading their respective party contests in national polls. They are relatively centrist candidates who can raise vast amounts of money and compete in large states like California, Florida and, yes, New York. And, according to at least one recent poll, both are currently running in third place in Iowa.

Is it any wonder that both campaigns might ponder the possibility of skirting the early caucus state? The story that has political junkies buzzing on Thursday concerns a leaked campaign memo suggesting the Clinton campaign skip the state altogether. The mere idea was quickly squashed by Clinton's staff and the candidate herself, but it's a natural thought for anyone involved in the campaign.

There has also been speculation about Giuliani's efforts in the state, particularly whether the amount of effort his campaign might expend on the expensive and potentially dangerous GOP straw poll this fall.

Iowa is an enormous organizational challenge, especially for large campaigns, and holds plenty of danger for perceived front-runners. It takes money to compete in the state, and not just the kind that goes for TV advertising. When caucus day rolls around, it's the campaigns that can get their supporters to those caucus meetings on a cold January evening that are rewarded. A second-tier candidate can score a huge victory with even a third-place showing, while a front-runner can be scarred badly by anything other than a win.

Add to that the fact that nearly two dozen states will be holding primaries just a week or two after Iowa and New Hampshire and the temptation exists to go where the delegates are. So does the risk-benefit calculation tilt away from Iowa this time around? That's the question many of the bigger campaigns are contemplating — none more so than the Clinton and Giuliani camps. It's tempting to believe the money and time spent in Iowa could be better spent in California.

For these two, there's more to consider. Unlike New Hampshire, where Republicans, Democrats and Independents cast their votes at polling places on their way to or from work, the caucuses are more dominated by activists in both parties. Ideological partisans have differences with both. For Clinton, her early and long support for the Iraq war continues to chafe many in the base of the party despite her tougher stances of late. Other candidates — most notably John Edwards — are viewed as more pure to those folks. Likewise, Giuliani's support for abortion rights and his past support for gun control is cause for concern. The GOP alternatives aren't completely acceptable either — but unlike Giuliani, they're making a hard pitch for the social conservative vote.

So skipping Iowa seems like an easier decision for these two campaigns, right? Not so fast. History says it's not a winning strategy. The last candidate of either party to skip Iowa and win the nomination was Bill Clinton in 1992, but that was the year Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin ran and the state was basically conceded by the rest of the field. More important, ceding the state could allow the eventual winners to take the momentum into New Hampshire, then to the larger Feb. 5 states.

If both campaigns opted out and continued to run strong in those big states, it could diminish Iowa to some extent — but that's a big gamble for big campaigns to take. Have the radical changes in the campaign calendar also changed the rules of the nominating game? That's the $64,000 question … and what all those strategists get paid the big bucks to answer. Either way, it's safe to say all this should-we-shouldn't-we hand-wringing isn't necessarily helpful to either campaign. A half-hearted effort there may be worse than none at all. — Vaughn Ververs

America Voted, And The Winner Is… No one just yet, it seems. Much like an "American Idol" results show, Hillary Clinton is stringing out the quest to determine her official campaign song — after an initial vote that started on May 16, Clinton announced Thursday that the final round of voting has started. It includes the top choices from the initial round as well as some of the most popular write-in candidates. Among the new choices are The Police's "Every Little Thing She Does Is Magic," Tina Turner's "The Best," and three other songs.

But the most winning element of the contest might just be the video Clinton posted to accompany the second round of voting. It includes a variety of clips of makeshift music videos sent in by Clinton's supporters (well, maybe), running the gamut from Tiny Tim's "Tiptoe Through the Tulips" to Justin Timberlake's "Sexyback." We even get a little bit of Clinton swaying to Celine Dion.

The most entertaining, and perhaps surprising part, however, comes after Clinton expresses gratitude that so many people thought the song competition was a "wonderful idea": video clips from various people calling the idea "ridiculous," "insulting," "stupid," and "disappointing."

As for the actual winner, Clinton promises a result in "the coming days" … and right after this commercial break. — David Miller

Base Instincts: Democrat John Edwards received some press — and a harsh rebuke from Republican Rudy Giuliani — after claiming on Thursday that the war on terrorism was "a slogan designed only for politics, not a strategy to make America safe." He added, "It's a bumper sticker, not a plan."

Rhetoric like that may not play well among independent and Republican voters in November 2008. The bigger problem for Edwards, however, is how it will sound to Democrats.

True, a significant chunk of the party's base finds the concept of a "war on terrorism" illogical and believe the Bush administration uses it as an excuse for endless combat. But polls also indicate that, while Democrats feel combating terrorism and the war in Iraq are two separate issues, they still take the former quite seriously. A recent CNN poll showed that just under half of both Democrats and Republicans consider terrorism a key issue.

People who agree with Edwards are sure to make up a good portion of those voting in next year's primaries and caucuses. But moderate Democrats will be there too, as well as ones who have electability on their mind. Swaying them over to his perspective might be Edwards' biggest challenge. — David Miller

Retail Sales: The big candidates may be debating the need for the traditional retail politics of Iowa and New Hampshire, but for candidates like Republican John Cox, it's the only game in town. Cox says he's spent around $800,000 on his presidential campaign in those states and South Carolina — but few voters will have heard of him when all is said and done. Still, Cox is reaching some crucial voters, as evidenced by that fact that at least some of the media is paying attention to him.

Cox was interviewed in the Manchester Union-Leader on Wednesday and used the opportunity to promote his business background and tout his agenda. While he has been barred from participating in the televised GOP debates, he's not giving up.

"This is about giving the American people a choice in 2008," Cox told the paper. Well, at least it's about giving voters in New Hampshire a choice, and that's better than nothing at all. Dozens of no-shot candidates may end up filing in New Hampshire. What's more democratic than that? — Vaughn Ververs

Editor's Note: Pure Horserace is a daily update of political news as interpreted by the political observers at CBSNews.com. Click here to sign up for the e-mail version.

By Vaughn Ververs and David Miller