Winter Break WK #2: “Trudging Through Iowa”
By Joe Klein
This is when running for President gets really hard. A bleak, windy Sunday morning in Fort Dodge, Iowa. The local roads are ice. As John Edwards enters the community-college cafeteria, his campaign workers are picking up rows of chairs–to make sure the media don’t shoot the empty seats. Edwards trudges through his stump speech–the least engaged I’ve ever seen him–and specifically asks the sparse gathering for questions about the issues he considers important: health care, global warming, poverty, the economy. There are none such. The questions are odd, off point. A Native American accuses Hillary Clinton of saying something outrageous about Native Americans; Edwards says he doesn’t think she could possibly have said that. A child asks if George W. Bush’s next job should be on Comedy Central. “I don’t think he’s very funny,” Edwards replies.
The next stop is better, but not much better, and there are several more stops after that. Edwards’ passionate, populist stump speech reminds you that his greatest strength as a trial lawyer used to be his closing argument. But this is Iowa, where all closing arguments are being delivered to hung juries. Even the people who support Edwards aren’t so sure.
I mention all this not to heap slag or prognostication–the journalistic equivalent of slag–upon the Edwards campaign but to give you a sense of what life is like for nearly every one of the candidates dragging themselves defiantly through Iowa in the final weeks of this campaign. No one knows what’s going to happen–and almost everyone appears to be losing ground, slipping on the Iowa ice, with the possible exceptions of Barack Obama and, on the Republican side, Mike Huckabee.
Obama’s appearance in Des Moines with Oprah Winfrey was startling, the largest crowd I’ve ever seen at a precaucus event. The Senator gave a riveting speech–and so did the TV celebrity, who riffed on a line from an old movie about a former slave, The Autobiography of Miss Jane Pittman, in which the protagonist would ask young people, “Are you the one?” Winfrey then proclaimed, “I’m here to tell you, he is the one.” That was probably too portentous for anything but daytime television. But the freshness of Obama’s personality, the easy elegance of his mind–and the fact that his fabulously American racial provenance has become an afterthought for so many winter-pale Iowans–have been the most memorable aspect of this primary season.
It has been an odd campaign for Democrats. The leading candidates are pretty much in agreement on what the big issues are–a new multilateralism overseas, a more comprehensive health-insurance system, the need to address global warming and the hope that the search for new energy sources will create new jobs–and on how to solve them. Edwards gets credit for laying out his dramatic plans first, especially for health care and global warming. Clinton gets credit for the smartest, most detailed plans. Senator Joe Biden gets credit for the unadorned, and short-winded, wit and intelligence of his debate performances.
Given the similarity of their positions and that presidential campaigns inevitably turn on character, it seems likely that this Iowa caucus will be decided personally, viscerally, for reasons that the voters themselves can’t always explain. In Algona, Iowa, I spoke with Chris and Martin Peterson, two former Republicans turned off by the Bush Administration, who seemed stumped by their own preferences this year. Chris was thinking about voting for Obama. “I just like him,” she said. Her husband Martin was leaning toward Bill Richardson, citing the New Mexico Governor’s humorous ads. This may dismay wonks, who want voters to choose the candidate with the best carbon-pollution-auction plan, but it is how elections are usually decided.
Journalists talk about the importance of the “ground game” in Iowa, which is shorthand for an organization’s ability to schlep voters to the polls on caucus night. Journalists make scholarly pronouncements about which candidates have the best ground game, but here’s a secret: journalists have no idea. In Algona, I spoke to Bill Farnham, a stockbroker, who praised the local Obama organizer, a young man named Nate Hundt, for really ingratiating himself with the community. But Clinton may have the dynamite organizer in Pella; Edwards, in Greenfield. Ground games are unknowable.
In recent days, a slight breeze of sentiment seems to be helping Obama and hurting Clinton. That could shift three times between now and Jan. 3. But neither of them nor any of the other Democrats have anything to be embarrassed about if they lose. It has been a good, substantive, almost civil campaign.
I almost passed this one by after reading it, feeling that there was nothing to say really. The last sentence kind of tweaked that attitude though.
“It has been a a good, substantive, almost civil campaign.”
Almost civil. Nicely put. It made me remember some questions.
Did we ever hear any more about that “dirt” on Obama that Hilary said she had?
Another question…do you think that Mitt Romney making his “religious” speech helped or hurt his campaign?
Just questions that seemed to run along with this article.
I noticed that the article talked about how journalists have no idea what the outcome is going to be. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? We’ve talked about how sometimes “knowing” the outcome can destroy a candidate before the final results are tallied. People think that if their candidate is “losing” based on the journalists’ reports, they shrug and move along without much care anymore.
However, it also gives the running candidates and the people an idea of how they are doing. So wouldn’t it be a bad thing if the journalists didn’t know what was going on during the Iowa caucus? Isn’t this a rather important one?
This article brought up more questions than answers, for me…
I thought the beginning of the article was interesting, how the campaign managers removed the empty rows, so they cameramen wouldn’t take pictures of them. Shows you how much thought is put into everything the candidates do. I think its interesting that Iowa is coming down to whose liked the most, as opposed to who is the most qualified, and that it seems to be anybody’s game at this point (with Obama and Huckabee out front, according to the article.)
To answer Brynna’s post, I haven’t heard anything else about the ‘dirt’ Hillary said she had on Obama. I think that was just politics. Because, hasn’t he pretty much owned up to everything? He was honest at the start about doing drugs, and I think in a weird way, that made him more trust-worthy.
I have a question though, we’ve talked in class about tactics and being on the defensive or the offensive, and I thought (I could be remembering incorrectly) that we talked about the Clintons typically being on the defensive. Wouldn’t Hillary’s comment be considered offensive? I don’t know if its just me, but making an ambigious comment like that, definitely designed to hurt her opponent, seems like a cheap shot from someone who is worried about their standings in the polls.
And I’m assuming Romney’s speech on religion was the one we saw in class, and personally, it made me like him a bit more. I think he said all the right things, whether or not he meant any of them is up for interpretation. Regardless of his speech, I think it will be hard for conservatives to trust a Mormon, just because it is something new.
I really enjoyed reading this article. It captured this election season well. I particuraly liked the ending when Klein said “Democrats have anything to be embarrassed about if they lose. It has been a good, substantive, almost civil campaign.” This statement holds a lot of truth to it. The Democrats have a lot of great candidates, and that is what I think it will be so hard for any of them to win the nomination. It’s too close. They are all very strong. It’s not like the Republicans who are more up in the air about who would be good for the nomination because the Democrats have stronger, and more candidates than the Republicans. I think this all goes to show how much the country is leaning towards a Democratic President instead of a Republican. The people are not going to vote for a Republican after President Bush. Besides that, like I said earlier the Republican candidates aren’t that strong. None of them are extreme conservatives, they all lean to liberal ideals in some areas. However, all of the Democrats are stong liberals. They are more solid. That’s why they will probably win in the Presidential race, and that’s why choosing who they will nominate will be very difficult.
Joe Klein gave and interesting tidbit on how Edward’s staff removed extra chairs to give the impression that he had a full audience. It reminds me of a puffer fish who blows himself up to make himself a lot bigger than he is. While this is a good idea I don’t think this will due Edwards much good unless he does something big. Another thing is that I doubt that he will be the only candidate to use this technique. During the video we watched of Bill Clinton’s campaign once the other parties caught on to the slash and burn it became a race for the door.
An other comment in the article, as Brynna and McKena brought up, the lack a dirt flinging that usually takes place. True it is rather civil as politics go I personally think that it’s just the calm before the storm. By now candidates are usually throwing at each other (with manure mixed in of course). If it doesn’t happen in Iowa it is sure to happen in New Hampshire. I imagine that that the news will give us some thing like Hillary’s plan to kill Bill found in her dairy or Obama is going to have surgery to make himself like Michael Jackson. All we have to do is wait. As we all know it is never over till the final vote.
Brynna to answer your questions…
“Did we ever hear any more about that “dirt” on Obama that Hilary said she had?”
-I have not heard anything more about that issue. If we don’t hear about it by Tuesday we can just assume that it was made up. Hillary knows she needs to win Iowa and if she is going to release it, it will be now or never.
“Another question…do you think that Mitt Romney making his “religious” speech helped or hurt his campaign?”
-I think it helped his campaign but can not save it. I honestly think that Republicans could not and will not in the near future nominate a Mormon. I think it could happen for the democratic nominee for president. Harry Reid-D [Senate Majority Leader] shows that Mormons can go far in the Democratic party but…on the “right” side its hard to see much diversity.
I noticed that the article talked about how journalists have no idea what the outcome is going to be. Is this a good thing or a bad thing?
I think the point the article was making is a journalist guess is as good as anyone’s. Except that their guess influences people’s opinions. For instance I think the only reason Huckabee won was because of the media elevating him to the “dark horse” status.
McKena Baranowski Says:
“And I’m assuming Romney’s speech on religion was the one we saw in class, and personally, it made me like him a bit more. I think he said all the right things, whether or not he meant any of them is up for interpretation. “
-I would agree that he said almost all the right things. I REALLY disagree that “Freedom requires religion” just my opinion though.
“Regardless of his speech, I think it will be hard for conservatives to trust a Mormon, just because it is something new.”
-I completely agree