Primary Pundit by Michael McCord

I got out of Des Moines early (really early) and beat the main media skeedaddle from the Iowa's caucus kingdom to our fair first-in-the-solar system primary land for a final blitz of campaign saturation. Here are a few Iowa follow ups:
I heard from Joyce Chamberlain, the Democratic precinct chair in Pleasantville where caucus night was like elsewhere throughout the state -- a record-smashing event. Earlier in the week (read here) I had traveled to Pleasantville, a small rural town southeast of Des Moines, for a morning coffee talk with Chamberlain and some of her friends (known in the area as the "Coffee Ladies"). She believed that Pleasantville would have a record turn out (to perhaps 150) and she was right about that -- only off by more than 150. Here's her report:

"We had a big turnout. Too big for the space we had. Here are my numbers:
Total Attendees: 304
We elected 29 delegates which broke down to:
Clinton 8
Obama 9
Edwards 12
Richardson was nearly viable on first count but could not attract any more. Dodd only had 3 at first count. 5 uncommitted.
The big surprise I wasn't planning for was registering 114 new democrats. Its allowed to switch parties to participate. We had many Repubs at our caucus. They must have thought we Democrats are more fun."

And then there was Tim McLean, an undecided first-time caucus goer from nearby Pleasant Hill who reported back that he made a decision to back John Edwards (he also like Republican Ron Paul). His wife Lonita, also a first-timer, opted for Hillary Clinton. The big news there also was turnout which broke records, a fact McLean attributed to the number of good choices Democrats felt they had with their candidates (two of which, Biden and Dodd, have since dropped out -- the high of Obama's triumph was matched by the low of seeing presidential campaign hopes dashed even before making it to New Hampshire.)

Leave it to a sourpuss editorialist at the New York Times today, of all days, to moan and cry yet again about how unfair it is that Iowa and New Hampshire have such a major impact on the nominating process. Boo hoo. This editorial was an act of establishment self-indulgence. There were the usual complaints about how superficial the process is, how issues aren't being addressed and other such claptrap. The best idea offered is regional primaries which plays into the big money players and wouldn't have allowed, for example, Huckabee to emerge or McCain to survive. What penetrating imagination -- and it ignores the Times' own reporting and what I witnessed myself of a serious committment to caucus, a knowledge of the issues (often as astute as any so-called expert) and how this looney tune arrangement managed to draw in tens of thousands of new and younger voters, both for Obama and Huckabee. There are good arguments to be made for how truly irrational our nominating process is and goodness knows I see the absurdity of it -- but to offer nothing as a substitute for a something that does engage voters who might otherwise be ignored is the weakest form of advocacy. There was far too much to celebrate on numerous levels today than to consider seriously this anemic editorial.

In my first post-caucus daily link, we find a reason why John McCain hearts Mike Huckabee as the Huck-man victory in Iowa was a political kick in the groin for Mitt Romney -- which surely made McCain smile.

Comments

Kick in the groin for Romney?

He lost Iowa because of the evangelical vote. I was there and knocked on doors and made calls starting New Year's day. The good news in all this was there were significant numbers of intelligent evangelicals who overcame bigotry and voted for Mitt. Look closely at the numbers; Romney got more of the evangelical votes than Huckabee received from the non-evangelicals. In my mind this was the real win. And, you are ignoring this fact! Romney will be the Republican nominee.

Posted by: D&A Stevens, OH | January 4, 2008 11:14 PM

i get SOOO tired of hearing people whine about the NH/IA "unfairness." Unless you do a simultaneous national primary, you can't be fair. The national (or even regional!) primary would be so expensive as to only make the current Big Money influences even worse.

So SOMEONE has to be first, and if EVERYbody is special, no one is....

I used to live in NH and am now in Kittery, so i don't get that "influence," but I don't begrudge my neighbors in NH! If someone REALLY wants diversity (and a geographically navigable area....) I'd nominate Ohio.... mix of red/blue, rich/poor, urban/rural, black/white etc.

Posted by: notay | January 5, 2008 01:42 AM

I am posting this same comment in a few areas, since I think it is important for NH voters to consider in this race.

I agree with Hillary Clinton that Obama is inexperienced and there is a concern there.

My obversations of Obama: I had started supporting Obama in 2004! in Texas, and did alot to talk him up here and at the University of Texas. I had photographed him 3 times in close quarters, and talked to him directly for a few minutes at one. I had made contributions to him the first 2 quarters of 2007. I was not the only one who put in ALOT of work to help him. Has his campaign found ways to get us involved or showed appreciation for our efforts? NO! His support in Austin has eroded in large areas, and his last rally here was MUCH smaller than the large Feb. 07 rally, that drew 20,000 people. His only contact with those of us, like myself who wanted to support him - has been "give me money" email and "hey come out to my rally!" email.

When I tried to give my concerns to the Obama people repeatedly!! by email and by phone, it was largely disregarded. When my concerns to a phone solicitor hit home at the time, and she gave me the national phone number, that national person's attitude was "hey there are too many people for us to follow up with" and we are focusing on the first 3 states. There was a strong arrogance with the person, as if Obama knows all and doesn't need any input on things from anyone. Is this giving a voice to those who are not lobbyists? Granted, the top person can't hear from everyone (despite Obama's rhetoric), but most campaigns understand that you need levels of leadership in a campaign to fully engage people nationally. This same mechanism is also required as President - since you need more than a podium and TV to truly engage people. While Obama gives lip service to this notion, his action and follow through are horribly lacking afterwards. Obama's is so restricted at the national level, they don't even engage voluntary groups like "Texans for Obama" - despite their efforts to help him.

There is a local young candidate here for city council who was like that, great initial candidate with charm and apparent charisma - but after winning he was largely dismissive of those that supported him. That city councilman has turned out to be one of the worst office holders in Austin. He tried to be friend to everyone, and he has come out to be friend to no one. Why? Inexperience! While Obama wants to have everyone have a voice equal to lobbyists and insiders, he is achieving this by excluding most everyone from input. While he has courted Iowa, NH, and SC closely, do not be mistaken - after you vote you won't hear or have any way to contact or be involved in his campaign, in my opinion - other than repeated "give me money" emails.

Having met all the top D candidates and also McCain on the R side, the two candidates that I think are the most personable when they are not wanting something from you are - Hillary and McCain. I was within the Secret Service bubble with Hillary for 3 hours and she was incredibly gracious and willing to listen to anyone. Obama was a rock star (in a negative way) in a similar position, and pretty much gives a smile, great giving speeches, but far LESS effective one-on-one than Hillary.

McCain also was willing to talk to people honestly, and I think also is someone that has incredible experience - and is not a gamble. I saw McCain get hit with a tough, emotional question from an audience member about health care, and he intently listened, and then gave his answer starting with, "you probably won't like my answer, but here it is ..." While I don't agree with McCain on all issues, he is genuine and capable. For those independents who do not like Hillary, I might suggest strongly giving a second look to McCain.

As an independent moderate, I hope my insight from Texas can help you all in NH better judge these candidates from a different perspective - the back side of their campaigns (the side you all don't see!).

Take care.

Posted by: James | January 5, 2008 11:00 AM